Slavery

[thomas t]

You can't be serious.

well I presented a very serious case: read this one: 2 Samuel 13:16.
We have one story in the Bible that displays the trouble of (not) marrying a rapist. 2 Samuel 13:16.

We also have a story in the Bible of a husband with an open mind with regard to rape, but here again, the woman does not adopt a clear stance that she does not wish to marry that one again. Judges 19:5.

 

[nPeace]

If God were good, he would not have waited so long. I refuse to condone slavery just so I can think an ancient text is inerrant.

It would seem that God is not good, and we are tayla... but based on what? Do we determine that a length of time determines that something is not what it really is?
Might it rather not be the case that we are shortsighted - missing some vital facts.
We know how often this has been the case with us humans.
The hubby promised to pick you up, two hours (exaggerated) ago. When he arrives, you are fuming - steam emitting from your ears... until the poor guy explains how he nearly lost his life, and the details which resulted in his tardiness.
You can't hide your embarrassment, as you say, "Oh honey. I'm so sorry." You think to yourself, "How important it is we get the facts first, before assuming we know better".

Of course, God is not delayed by any 'accident', but he certainly has good reasons for delaying.
The Bible gives us those reasons.
Here is one... 2 Peter 3:9
Would you like to hear the others?

Slavery... How do you define it?
One definition is given here... A person is enslaved when a slaver coerces him or her into working for them and is deprived of the opportunity to leave.
Under the subtitle 'Terminology', the same article describes various forms of slavery. One describes...
Dependents
"Slavery" has also been used to refer to a legal state of dependency to somebody else. For example, in Persia, the situations and lives of such slaves could be better than those of common citizens.

Another... A slave was considered by law as property, or chattel, and was deprived of most of the rights ordinarily held by free persons.
The article says... There is no consensus on what a slave was or on how the institution of slavery should be defined...
There have been two basic types of slavery throughout recorded history.

So, to be certain we both are understanding each other, perhaps you can explain what kind of slavery you have in mind.
It might be helpful too, to note that the OP does show that the form of slavery the Israelites adopted was not condoned by God, and was eventually adjusted, and completely removed.
It was revived by persons in opposition to God's ways - persons seeking their own interests.

 

[nPeace]

Not, I'm not talking about cherry picking symbolism. I'm talking about actual slavery as condoned and regulated in exodus.

You know that off course. You just are trying your best to divert the focus from the nasty bits.

Who is talking about cherry picking symbolism? Where did that come from, and why, other than you creating it for no reason related to anything said in the OP... or anywhere in this thread.
Please try to follow what is said, and respond coherently to it.
I want to respond to something that has actual relevance.

No you are not talking about actual slavery as condoned in Exodus.

Read your bible.

Bible Gateway passage: Exodus 21:20-21 - New International Version

20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.

This is where you are claiming the condoning of slavery?
Speaking of cherry picking and symbolism.
I suggest to quit that, and actually read the Bible.
I guess according to your logic and understanding God condones men fighting against each other also, according to the following verse - verse 22.
God neither condoned the slavery practiced by the nation of Israel. Nor did he sanction it.
I suggest you not only read the Bible, but read the OP as well... Or at least try to understand what you read.

Slavery will never be right. And was never right.
Forcing women to marry their rapists will never be right. And was never right.

Regardless of past primitive barbarian cultures.
The morals exhibited in the bible are primitive and barbaric.
My moral compass is vastly superior then that.
So is yours.

Considering what you have in your mind, and not what the Bible says, I would agree with you.

I would also add that the terms men use to describe activities, and the way they change these terms over time, will indeed come to an end. So yes, the slavery that you can only see and understand - the narrow fixed view you have, is never right, and was never right - not even to God himself.
That was mentioned in the OP. You probably missed it.

What is the difference between a slave and a servant?
Do you think servitude is wrong? Is it wrong to be s servant, in your opinion, also?

 

[nPeace]

Children are human beings. Human beings aren't anyone's property.
You are your child's guardian. You are not your child's owner.


You "own" your car. You don't "own" your kids.

I'm sorry, children belong to their parents. Parents guard their belongings, of which their children are more important than their material possessions.
...and they accuse Christians of only seeing in black and white.

By the way, @TagliatelliMonster, why do you say your 'kids', if they don't belong to you?

 

[nPeace]

What kind of logic is that? It looks like you are ready to endorse owning another human being, because you think that owning our kids is fine. That is a non-sequitur as big as a house.

Incidentally, if your children are your property, how much do they cost?

Ciao

- viole

They are not for sale.
What's your most precious possession, and how much is it worth?
Do you have the right to your children?

 

[nPeace]

Take care to not selectively cite the OT concerning slavery. There are distinct types of 'slavery' described in the OT: (1) Slavery of foreigners. (2) Indentured servitude of Hebrews committed to servitude to other Hebrews. Actually in history Europeans and in the Americas this Biblical regulation was followed. Blacks and in many cases Native Americans were considered foreigners and justified to be enslaved. The dominate view was descendants of European ancestry would be indentured servants.

Thanks very much for that.

 

[night912]

I don't know if you're addressing her or me, but it clearly isn't culturally accepted and is highly illegal. And even if it were, it would still be immoral because it victimizes the innocent, just like rape and slavery (the two things the god of the Bible didn't have the balls to condemn because he prostated himself before primitive, savage cultures.)

I'm addressing her. If going by her logic, then child pornography is not immoral because it's just today's culture.

 

[night912]

please substanciate your claim providing decent sourcing.
If you can't, I consider your post to be presumption.

So the bible is no longer a source if I'm using it?

 

[thomas t]

So the bible is no longer a source if I'm using it?

you didn't use it.
I asked for substanciation for your claim.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Who is talking about cherry picking symbolism?

I am, because it is what you are clearly doing.

Where did that come from, and why

Because you started quoting verses that had nothing to do with the actual topic, doing your best to stay clear of the actual verses under discussion.

, other than you creating it for no reason related to anything said in the OP... or anywhere in this thread.

The thread is about slavery. Biblical regulations of slavery aren't found in the verses you quoted. They are found in others. You know which, I assume. You just don't like to talk about it.

Please try to follow what is said, and respond coherently to it.
I want to respond to something that has actual relevance.

The verses that regulate the practice of slavery, seems pretty relevant to a topic concerning slavery.

No you are not talking about actual slavery as condoned in Exodus.

Except that I am.

This is where you are claiming the condoning of slavery?

It literally states that slaves are the property of their masters, and hands out rules and regulations on how that relation works. Obviously, that is condoning the practice of slavery.

Why would one give rules and regulations for a practice, that is forbidden instead of condoned?
Not to mention that it doesn't say ANYWHERE in the bible "though shall not keep slaves". Not by any means.

Speaking of cherry picking and symbolism.

A verse that literally states that you can beat your slave, who is your property, as long as the slave doesn't die within a couple of days as a direct result, seems like the opposite of "cherry picking". And it certainly isn't "symbolic" either. It's instead extremely detailed and practical.

I suggest to quit that, and actually read the Bible.

You mean, read the bible but not these particular parts, where it condones slavery and regulates the practice?

I guess according to your logic and understanding God condones men fighting against each other also, according to the following verse - verse 22.
God neither condoned the slavery practiced by the nation of Israel. Nor did he sanction it.

Maybe you should take your own advice and read the bible.

Leviticus 25:44-46
44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.



It is LITERALLY giving permission. aka condoning.

I suggest you not only read the Bible, but read the OP as well... Or at least try to understand what you read.

Perhaps you should try that as well some time.

Considering what you have in your mind, and not what the Bible says, I would agree with you.

I quoted you directly what the bible says. It says YOU MAY BUY AND KEEP SLAVES. It says THEY BECOME YOUR PROPERTY. It says YOUR CHILDREN CAN INHERIT THEM AS PROPERTY.

I would also add that the terms men use to describe activities, and the way they change these terms over time, will indeed come to an end. So yes, the slavery that you can only see and understand - the narrow fixed view you have, is never right, and was never right - not even to God himself.
That was mentioned in the OP. You probably missed it.

It's just apologetics in an attempt to defend the undefendable.

The bible is crystal clear on this matter. It condones slave trade, it recognises slaves as being private PROPERTY, it calls slaves the "money" of the masters, it says children can INHERIT them.

What is the difference between a slave and a servant?
Do you think servitude is wrong? Is it wrong to be s servant, in your opinion, also?

Is the article you linked supposed to make it somehow look better?
Did you read it?

Yes, being a servant as described in that article is wrong. Very, very wrong.
"Crime against humanity" - style wrong.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm sorry, children belong to their parents

No. Parents have custody over their kids. They don't "own" them like they "own" their car.

For example, you can sell property. You can't exactly sell your kids, now can you?
I can take a baseball bat and destroy my car just for the fun of it. I can't exactly do that with my kids, now can I?

No, kids are nothing like "property".

What a terrible thing to say.

Parents guard their belongings, of which their children are more important than their material possessions.
...and they accuse Christians of only seeing in black and white.

By the way, @TagliatelliMonster, why do you say your 'kids', if they don't belong to you?

Hilarious question, especially when in the sentence before it you implicitly accuse me of black and white thinking......

Tell me, when your son is a 50-year old adult, is he then still your "property"?
Yet, you still call him your son, don't you?

Maybe, just maybe, the "my" in "this is my kid" does not refer to ownership but rather to a personal relation?

Do you also "own" YOUR friends?

For crying out loud......

 

[thomas t]

If a slave master is harsh, he suffers the consequences.
Deuteronomy 23
15 “You should not hand over a slave to his master when he escapes from his master and comes to you. 16 He may dwell among you in whatever place he chooses in one of your cities, wherever he likes. You must not mistreat him.

that's the theory.
And here is what used to be common practice:
Ecclesiastes 5:8
Isaiah 3:15
Isaiah 58:3
Amos 4:1

EDITED for clarity

 

[thomas t]

...and they accuse Christians of only seeing in black and white.

the moment they get to hear this garbage from professing Christians... how do you think they should react?
You're harming God's reputation, in my opinion.
There is no Bible verse saying that children should be seen as the property of parents.


Quote Bible and don't teach Jehova Witnesses special talk, please.

EDITED for correction (passage highlighted in green color)

 

[nPeace]

I am, because it is what you are clearly doing.

If that were true, you could specify where exactly I am doing that, but you cannot because clearly, you made it up. It's all in your head.

Because you started quoting verses that had nothing to do with the actual topic, doing your best to stay clear of the actual verses under discussion.

The topic?
You must have in mind a topic that you created, because I created the topic, and the OP gives the details about the topic I have in mind.

The thread is about slavery. Biblical regulations of slavery aren't found in the verses you quoted. They are found in others. You know which, I assume. You just don't like to talk about it.

Ah. You apparently are deciding what you want the thread to be, but you don't get to decide that. The poster of the OP does. That would be me.
So if the Topic is indeed about Slavery, why aren't you talking about African slaves; black American slaves; Jewish slave?
Because the thread is not about slavery in the general sense. It is specific.
You are picking what you want - cherry picking.
It doesn't work like that. Sorry.

The verses that regulate the practice of slavery, seems pretty relevant to a topic concerning slavery.

Oh. Okay. what verse is that?

Except that I am.

No. you are not.

It literally states that slaves are the property of their masters, and hands out rules and regulations on how that relation works. Obviously, that is condoning the practice of slavery.

Why would one give rules and regulations for a practice, that is forbidden instead of condoned?
Not to mention that it doesn't say ANYWHERE in the bible "though shall not keep slaves". Not by any means.

Read the OP, for the answer to those questions.
Should I take your hand and walk you through it?
Again, the OP says that God allowed these things. The form of slavery, not acceptable to God, will be gone forever... eventually.

A verse that literally states that you can beat your slave, who is your property, as long as the slave doesn't die within a couple of days as a direct result, seems like the opposite of "cherry picking". And it certainly isn't "symbolic" either. It's instead extremely detailed and practical.

Really? My. I must not be able to read, because I never saw any verse that says, you can beat a slave, or it's okay to do so.
Rather, I see verses that say the opposite... that they should remember that they were slaves, and not mistreat others. Did you not read those?

You mean, read the bible but not these particular parts, where it condones slavery and regulates the practice?

As the OP says, slavery was allowed.
It was a practice the nation of Israel took up, and God allowed it. It will be removed entirely.
Why am I repeating what the OP says, as though I am speaking to a child. You are not a child.

Maybe you should take your own advice and read the bible.

Leviticus 25:44-46
44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

Ah. This sound similar to this...
(Exodus 21:10) . . . If he takes another wife for himself, the sustenance, the clothing, and the marriage due of the first wife are not to be diminished.

...which is different to Leviticus 18 which repeatedly says, "You must...", isn't it.
Jehovah not removing something immediately, does not mean it is his will .. Tolerates it; Allows it. Yes.

Jehovah put laws, and regulations in place, where practices he allowed to continue, existed.
As the OP said, Hence, rather than end the practice, as was the case with polygamy, Jehovah allowed it, and put laws in place that allowed for just treatment.
As with many things, both in the past, and today, Jehovah allows them, for a time.

It is LITERALLY giving permission. aka condoning.

Jehovah allowed them to continue the practice of using slaves from enemy nations. Yes.
Why is that a problem? You probably think that Jehovah should not war against his enemies, or send the Israelites to fight and kill them either. Do you?

Perhaps you should try that as well some time.

Ha Ha.
I believe you mean well.

I quoted you directly what the bible says. It says YOU MAY BUY AND KEEP SLAVES. It says THEY BECOME YOUR PROPERTY. It says YOUR CHILDREN CAN INHERIT THEM AS PROPERTY.

Yes. Now I see what else you have in mind, alongside the narrow view of slavery not described in the Bible... Up till now you have not shown me that beating a slave was acceptable.

Slavery; war; polygamy; All allowed by God.
In the case of war, Jehovah has the right to war against his enemies, and he will continue to war against them , until they are eradicated from the face of the earth. Then war will cease, entirely.
In the case of slavery, captives served his people, just as he said they would, when they were defeated. You gave me no reason why this is wrong. Which do you prefer? To slay those who surrender, or make them serve you?
The treatment they received was actually better than those who were warring against Israel... It was probably a paradise to them.
Some even begged for it. I would too, if I were in their position.

Spoiler

(Joshua 9:3-8) 3 And the inhabitants of Gibʹe·on heard what Joshua had done to Jerʹi·cho and Aʹi. 4 So they, even of their own accord, acted with shrewdness and went and stocked themselves with provisions and took worn-out sacks for their asses, and wine skin-bottles worn out and burst and tied up, 5 and worn-out and patched sandals on their feet, and worn-out garments upon themselves, and all the bread of their provisions proved to be dry and crumby. 6 Then they went to Joshua at the camp at Gilʹgal and said to him and the men of Israel: “It is from a distant land that we have come. And now CONCLUDE a covenant with us.” 7 At this the men of Israel said to the Hiʹvites: “Perhaps it is in our vicinity that you are dwelling. So how could we conclude a covenant with you?” 8 In turn they said to Joshua: “We are your servants.”. . .

(Joshua 9:19-21) 19 At this all the chieftains said to all the assembly: “We, for our part, have sworn to them by Jehovah the God of Israel, and now we are not allowed to hurt them. 20 This is what we shall do to them while letting them live, that no indignation may come upon us over the oath that we have sworn to them.” 21 So the chieftains said to them: “Let them live and let them become gatherers of wood and drawers of water for all the assembly, just as the chieftains have promised them.”

Polygamy lasted for a while - Acts 17:30

View attachment 42698

Hee Hee.
Surely you don't imagine you look like that.

It's just apologetics in an attempt to defend the undefendable.

The bible is crystal clear on this matter. It condones slave trade, it recognises slaves as being private PROPERTY, it calls slaves the "money" of the masters, it says children can INHERIT them.

What I find sad about this, is that skeptics and Atheists never tire of trying desperately to find fault, where there is none, unless they ignore the positive aspects... and then they claim Apologetics, as though that makes them feel good, or better about their stance.
It's like trying to wash a stain from a garment, and not giving up, despite it not moving... imo.

May I ask what you mean when you say condone?

Is the article you linked supposed to make it somehow look better?
Did you read it?

Yes, being a servant as described in that article is wrong. Very, very wrong.
"Crime against humanity" - style wrong.

"As described in the article." Okay, but that was not my question, was it.

 

[nPeace]

the moment they get to hear this garbage from professing Christians... how do you think they should react?
You're harming God's reputation, in my opinion.
There is no Bible verse saying that children should be seen as the property of parents.


Quote Bible and don't teach Jehova Witnesses special talk, please.

EDITED for correction

(Psalm 127:3) . . . Sons are an inheritance . . .
The fruit of the womb is a reward.

What does your Bible say? What's an inheritance?

 

[nPeace]

No. Parents have custody over their kids. They don't "own" them like they "own" their car.

For example, you can sell property. You can't exactly sell your kids, now can you?
I can take a baseball bat and destroy my car just for the fun of it. I can't exactly do that with my kids, now can I?

No, kids are nothing like "property".

What a terrible thing to say.

Black and white. I never said anything about material possessions.

Hilarious question, especially when in the sentence before it you implicitly accuse me of black and white thinking......

Tell me, when your son is a 50-year old adult, is he then still your "property"?
Yet, you still call him your son, don't you?

Maybe, just maybe, the "my" in "this is my kid" does not refer to ownership but rather to a personal relation?

Do you also "own" YOUR friends?

For crying out loud......

Yup. you got me on that one. I blundered - Played right into your hands, didn't I.
Don't let it grow your head any bigger.

 

[nPeace]

that's the theory.
And here is what used to be common practice:
Ecclesiastes 5:8
Isaiah 3:15
Isaiah 58:3
Amos 4:1

EDITED for clarity

Common practice by those who hated God's law, yes.

 

[night912]

you didn't use it.
I asked for substanciation for your claim.

I did, just like you. Now can you show your evidence for your claim, that women back then want to marry their rapist.

 

[thomas t]

I did, just like you. Now can you show your evidence for your claim, that women back then want to marry their rapist.

No you did not substanciate your claim providing sources. In #49, I asked you to provide decent sourcing. Mere assumptions are not proof.
You wrote 5 posts in this thread before the one I'm replying to now, none of them contains any scripture verse or scientific source: I'll go ahead and cite two of them, since two posts were about child porn, another about clean and unclean.

So the bible is no longer a source if I'm using it?

Proof [that women did not want to marry the rapist who raped her]: the law right before that one.

 

[thomas t]

(Psalm 127:3) . . . Sons are an inheritance . . .
The fruit of the womb is a reward.

What does your Bible say? What's an inheritance?

you're a good debater, but in this case my Bible says:
an inheritance of the Lord.
Psalm 127:3 uses נַחֲלַ֥ת יְהוָֽה.
יְהוָֽה means Yahweh.
נַחֲלַ֥ת means inheritance.

KJV translates: Lo, children [are] an heritage of the LORD: (Psalms 127:3)