The bible and slavery - please post direct passages from the bible that you believe support slavery.

[dybmh]

Sorry, but you are just clutching at straw now.

Yes, there are exceptions.

So what? You are still advocating for rape if you support those passages. By your own poor rules it is rape.

Respectfully, what are my rules? And how is this rape according to those rules?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Respectfully, what are my rules? And how is this rape according to those rules?

The rules are the rules of modern society.

Do you have a daughter? It may help if you think about how you would feel if she was treated in the biblical fashion.

 

[dybmh]

The rules are the rules of modern society.

Do you have a daughter? It may help if you think about how you would feel if she was treated in the biblical fashion.

You said, "by your own poor rules, it is still rape". Now you're changing it to modern rules of society.

That's fine.

If I was a rapist, a murderer, commited incest on my daughter, impregnated her, and burned her children in the fire ( Deuteronomy 12:31 ), and a foreign nation invaded, and one of the soldiers chose her to be his wife, and she agreed repeatedly, and waited a month to be sure it's what she wanted? And during that time she was free to leave?

No, it's not rape, especially for my daughter.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You said, "by your own poor rules, it is still rape". Now you're changing it to modern rules of society.

That's fine.

If I was a rapist, a murderer, commited incest on my daughter, impregnated her, and burned her children in the fire ( Deuteronomy 12:31 ), and a foreign nation invaded, and one of the soldiers chose her to be his wife, and she agreed repeatedly, and waited a month to be sure it's what she wanted? And during that time she was free to leave?

No, it's not rape, especially for my daughter.

It always was with modern moral in consideration. The morals of the Old Testament are very very flawed. The morals of the Old Testament tell us that it is a collection of writings that was mostly done by men, there does not appear to be any divine intervention in their writing. And you confirm that by all of the mental gymnastics that you need to do to justify them.

Now they can be justified if one realizes that they are just the best that men of that time could do. People are flawed and there are limits to the laws that they make. But there is no excuse for those bad laws if they were the work of a God.

 

[dybmh]

It always was with modern moral in consideration. The morals of the Old Testament are very very flawed. The morals of the Old Testament tell us that it is a collection of writings that was mostly done by men, there does not appear to be any divine intervention in their writing. And you confirm that by all of the mental gymnastics that you need to do to justify them.

Now they can be justified if one realizes that they are just the best that men of that time could do. People are flawed and there are limits to the laws that they make. But there is no excuse for those bad laws if they were the work of a God.

My objection: there is no sex-slave permitted in the bible. rape is explicitly forbidden. And, if one goes back, I acknowledged that there is plenty of room for criticism of the captive bride, but that doesn't mean it's rape. If the bible is flawed, then criticize it fairly based on what is written. There's plenty of things to criticize. But this isn't one of them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My objection: there is no sex-slave permitted in the bible. rape is explicitly forbidden. And, if one goes back, I acknowledged that there is plenty of room for criticism of the captive bride, but that doesn't mean it's rape. If the bible is flawed, then criticize it fairly based on what is written. There's plenty of things to criticize. But this isn't one of them.

No, that is only your interpretation. You refuse to look at how the laws would actually apply.

 

[dybmh]

No, that is only your interpretation. You refuse to look at how the laws would actually apply.

No, you're wrong. This is what is explicitly written. Rape is forbidden on the battlefield; rape is forbidden off the battlefield. Rape is completely forbidden. It's not interpretation, just going by what's on the page. I'm not alone on this, I brought a couple of examples. Torah.com is a scholarly source. Chabad.org is a religious source. I understand this is an atheist talking-point. And it's false. The right thing to do is learn from this. Just as you might expect someone with integrity to learn from science which proves that a world-wide flood is physically impossible. I expect that someone with integrity would learn from this:

1. Marriage in the Torah is consentual
2. Rape in the Torah is prohibitted
3. Slaves in the Torah are not considered property like animals and inanimate objects

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, you're wrong. This is what is explicitly written. Rape is forbidden on the battlefield; rape is forbidden off the battlefield. Rape is completely forbidden. It's not interpretation, just going by what's on the page. I'm not alone on this, I brought a couple of examples. Torah.com is a scholarly source. Chabad.org is a religious source. I understand this is an atheist talking-point. And it's false. The right thing to do is learn from this. Just as you might expect someone with integrity to learn from science which proves that a world-wide flood is physically impossible. I expect that someone with integrity would learn from this:

1. Marriage in the Torah is consentual
2. Rape in the Torah is prohibitted
3. Slaves in the Torah are not considered property like animals and inanimate objects

That is merely your very biased interpretation. Why do you bend over backwards in defense of that work? If it was the word of God do you really think that you would have to do that?

The Torah is only not as rapey as it could be. That does not mean that it does not advocate rape. Give the girl thirty days and then it is not rape. Real kindness there.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Slavery is very alive and well in the US penal system , and explains why we are the most incarcerated nation in the world with a figure surpassing multiple millions of people being forced into involuntary labor benefitting government and private businesses and institutions alike. Our politicians are still very very pro slavery.

Not Trump. He pardoned and freed his buddies left and right. That must be why he compared himself favorably to Lincoln.

Incidentally, I noticed that Tyre Nichols died three days after the beating the police gave him while enslaved by them (he was in their custody against his will), which makes it a good kill by biblical standards. That scene could have come out of Roots or 12 Years a Slave.

 

[dybmh]

That is merely your very biased interpretation. Why do you bend over backwards in defense of that work? If it was the word of God do you really think that you would have to do that?

The Torah is only not as rapey as it could be. That does not mean that it does not advocate rape. Give the girl thirty days and then it is not rape. Real kindness there.

Well, my reason for correcting the record on sexual-slavery should be obvious. That's a rather extreme allegation. If it's false, then it should be east to understand why I would object to that. Regarding bias, I highly doubt you are the right person to determine that. The primary indicator of bias is ignoring new information that challenges a strongly held belief. When I brought you the Jewish law which combines the verses throughout Torah regarding a maid-servant. You immediately disregarded it claiming it was apologist and likely to be a lie.

That said, for my own benefit, I'm assessing my own bias. Since the disagreement is about what is written, the first order of business is to review the text to see if I'm missing something. On review, there are 2 words in the verses describing the captive bride which if literally translated cause a problem with the claim that this is not describing a rape. What remains is all clear cut, literally prohibiting rape of any kind. Detailing these issues doesn't seem productive. You probably wouldn't believe that I'm being objective regardless of what I say. But most people seem to agree with my understanding of these words.

The next step was to actively seek out opposing views and see if I immediately rejected them. I already admitted that the Torah has plenty to critisize, but, maybe issues surrounding rape are a topic which I strongly reject without good reason. Searching online the best arguments came from a Jewish feminist group. They didn't focus on rape, but more on the treatment of women and the portrayal of women in the prophetic imagery of the later books. That was a really interesting read. I can certainly see their point of view. But I will point out that they didn't mention the captive bride at all, and I think they would have if it was a valid example of male-female domination. Other than that, I see plenty of militant opinions claiming there's rape and sexual slavery in the Torah, but it's all based on mistranslations to make their arguments.

One of the sites was interesting because it points to a rather disturbing section of Mishnah which, yes, if read literally, it sounds like child-rape is permitted. It's extremely shocking. However, in reality, the passage seems to be answering the question, "How did the Israelites know which of the midianite women were virgins?" And honestly, I never thought of that, it's a really good question. And answering this question involves speaking about a hypothethical situation which is extremely weird. It's perfectly understandable for someone to read it and think something is permitted when it doesn't actually say that at all.

So, looking back on my claims, at least about rape and sexual slavery, I still think I'm correct in my view. Feminists seem to agree that rape is not condoned even though violence towards women seems to be acceptable as a prophetic rebuke. My literal translation of the words on the page seem to be accurate. The 2 words which weaken my argument have been acknowledged and most people translate it similar to me. And having looked at the harshest criticism, I can see why someone would think that rape is permitted based on a very strange extra-biblical discussion.

So, no, this is not a biased point of view. I have double checked. I am speaking accurately. My claim is coming from fact, not opinion. I have sought out opposing views, and acknowledge where they are valid, but my claim still remains unrefuted.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, my reason for correcting the record on sexual-slavery should be obvious. That's a rather extreme allegation. If it's false, then it should be east to understand why I would object to that. Regarding bias, I highly doubt you are the right person to determine that. The primary indicator of bias is ignoring new information that challenges a strongly held belief. When I brought you the Jewish law which combines the verses throughout Torah regarding a maid-servant. You immediately disregarded it claiming it was apologist and likely to be a lie.

That said, for my own benefit, I'm assessing my own bias. Since the disagreement is about what is written, the first order of business is to review the text to see if I'm missing something. On review, there are 2 words in the verses describing the captive bride which if literally translated cause a problem with the claim that this is not describing a rape. What remains is all clear cut, literally prohibiting rape of any kind. Detailing these issues doesn't seem productive. You probably wouldn't believe that I'm being objective regardless of what I say. But most people seem to agree with my understanding of these words.

The next step was to actively seek out opposing views and see if I immediately rejected them. I already admitted that the Torah has plenty to critisize, but, maybe issues surrounding rape are a topic which I strongly reject without good reason. Searching online the best arguments came from a Jewish feminist group. They didn't focus on rape, but more on the treatment of women and the portrayal of women in the prophetic imagery of the later books. That was a really interesting read. I can certainly see their point of view. But I will point out that they didn't mention the captive bride at all, and I think they would have if it was a valid example of male-female domination. Other than that, I see plenty of militant opinions claiming there's rape and sexual slavery in the Torah, but it's all based on mistranslations to make their arguments.

One of the sites was interesting because it points to a rather disturbing section of Mishnah which, yes, if read literally, it sounds like child-rape is permitted. It's extremely shocking. However, in reality, the passage seems to be answering the question, "How did the Israelites know which of the midianite women were virgins?" And honestly, I never thought of that, it's a really good question. And answering this question involves speaking about a hypothethical situation which is extremely weird. It's perfectly understandable for someone to read it and think something is permitted when it doesn't actually say that at all.

So, looking back on my claims, at least about rape and sexual slavery, I still think I'm correct in my view. Feminists seem to agree that rape is not condoned even though violence towards women seems to be acceptable as a prophetic rebuke. My literal translation of the words on the page seem to be accurate. The 2 words which weaken my argument have been acknowledged and most people translate it similar to me. And having looked at the harshest criticism, I can see why someone would think that rape is permitted based on a very strange extra-biblical discussion.

So, no, this is not a biased point of view. I have double checked. I am speaking accurately. My claim is coming from fact, not opinion. I have sought out opposing views, and acknowledge where they are valid, but my claim still remains unrefuted.

You did not bring "new information" you only brought claims and they appeared to have been from apologist sites. For "new information" the best sources would be biblical scholars. Not those with a vested interest. Find some scholars that support your views and you might have something.

And just in case you do not know, there is peer review for history too. That is where scholars tend to publish. That is where the basic concepts are refined and then they can be parts of larger works. But if you merely use authors looking for ways to justify what the Torah says that would be a fail on your part.

 

[dybmh]

You did not bring "new information" you only brought claims and they appeared to have been from apologist sites. For "new information" the best sources would be biblical scholars. Not those with a vested interest. Find some scholars that support your views and you might have something.

And just in case you do not know, there is peer review for history too. That is where scholars tend to publish. That is where the basic concepts are refined and then they can be parts of larger works. But if you merely use authors looking for ways to justify what the Torah says that would be a fail on your part.

No, I brought you Jewish law, not an apologist website.

And Correct me if I'm wrong, but, it seemed you were not aware of Deuteronomy 15:17 which literally states the maid-servant is freed after 7 years?

Also, the verse which literally says that an escape slave is free, were you aware of that?

The verse about marriage consent in Genesis? were you aware of that?

Regarding peer-reviewed papers. If you don't bring them, I don't need to bring them either. If the debate is about what is written, then all that's needed in the debate is the text itself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, I brought you Jewish law, not an apologist website.

And Correct me if I'm wrong, but, it seemed you were not aware of Deuteronomy 15:17 which literally states the maid-servant is freed after 7 years?

Also, the verse which literally says that an escape slave is free, were you aware of that?

The verse about marriage consent in Genesis? were you aware of that?

Regarding peer-reviewed papers. If you don't bring them, I don't need to bring them either. If the debate is about what is written, then all that's needed in the debate is the text itself.

That is a new one to me. But you do not seem to understand the context of it. That only applies to Israelites. It does not apply to the chattel slaves that they owned. Nor does it contradict the earlier verse from Exodus 21.

The problem is that you are trying to defend the Torah. Your sources are not proper authorities to do that. They do not trump what everyone else can see. in fact if anything they harm your argument.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just out of curiosity I went to Google scholar and it appear that this topic (the man that agrees to be a slave for life) is still discussed somewhat. The straight forward interpretation appears to be the more accepted one. I guess there are still some people that it bothers (and it really should if one believes that it is the word of God). This article covers it somewhat and it also goes over the fact that even debt slaves were subject to rather severe beatings. There was just a limit on those beatings:

“She Shall Not Go Free as Male Slaves Do”: Developing Views About Slavery and Gender in the Laws of the Hebrew Bible

 

[Quagmire]

Sure but the point is why did God allow it, not why did people have slaves.

What in the world do you think that has to do with the part of my post that this is supposed to be a response to?

It's like I said "it's not nice to kick puppies" and you answered, "Well sure, but peanut butter tastes good".

No, I am saying that if God made rules for flashing old ladies and I was participating in special pleading that it was somehow ok for ancient people because God was involved but not for us now.

Could you go back and read that sentence again and tell me if you actually think it makes sense?

Yes, because in context of the conversation it makes sense. I did not just go up to someone and ask them if they thing slavery is wrong out of nowhere.

Yeah, you kind of did.

The op is requesting; "
please post direct passages from the bible that you believe support slavery".

What people in this thread think personally about slavery doesn't have a whole lot to do with the topic, and it's something nobody would ever try to introduce into the discussion except as an underhanded way to get the opposition on the defensive.

This is part of what I mean by desperate. You're desperate to score points but you know you're firing blanks so you need to get personal by passive aggressively suggesting that anyone who disagrees with you might (or is it 'must') secretly be in favor of slavery.

If someone says it is ok for God to write rules for the Hebrews to own slaves and that is ok because we cannot understand the good reasons God has for it, then asking the question is not condescending.

Yes, it still is.

Ok


No, I am trying to have a conversation

No, you were moralizing.

I just don't think you understand the difference.

and you are trying to score points.

Nope, just trying to keep the sanctimonious background noise to a tolerable level.

Think what you want but anyone who tries to justify God's rules for slavery is wrong.

Well I guess that settles that.

People do that all the time today, so asking that question in conversation is relevant. I am not saying you ever did.

I don't really care who it was aimed at.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

The op is requesting; "
please post direct passages from the bible that you believe support slavery".

I did this. Two posts actually with many passages and comments on the passages. The fact that you have a problem with me saying slavery is wrong or asking someone that supports those passages if slavery is wrong is mindboggling.

 

[Quagmire]

I did this.

So basically you're saying that two token posts in response to the op entitles you to make several subsequent posts consisting of nothing but sanctimonious, off topic moralizing.

Got it.

Two posts actually with many passages and comments on the passages. The fact that you have a problem with me saying slavery is wrong

Now you're just purposely missing the point.

Do you really think people can't see right through this kind of shady, passive-aggressive nonsense?

"I can't refute anything you said so I'm going to get even with you by blatantly twisting everything you said in order to make you look bad. Snicker snicker snicker."

Only making yourself look bad.

or asking someone that supports those passages if slavery is wrong is mindboggling.

The fact that you can so blatantly and purposely misrepresent someone's position without any apparent pangs of conscience is mind boggling.

And kind of creepy.

 

[Soapy]

The rules are the rules of modern society.

Do you have a daughter? It may help if you think about how you would feel if she was treated in the biblical fashion.

I think you are not allowed to make comments about other posters personal self, property, or family.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think you are not allowed to make comments about other posters personal self, property, or family.

That was not a comment about his daughter. It was an attempt to try to get him to see this topic from another point of view.

 

[dybmh]

Just out of curiosity I went to Google scholar and it appear that this topic (the man that agrees to be a slave for life) is still discussed somewhat. The straight forward interpretation appears to be the more accepted one. I guess there are still some people that it bothers (and it really should if one believes that it is the word of God). This article covers it somewhat and it also goes over the fact that even debt slaves were subject to rather severe beatings. There was just a limit on those beatings:

“She Shall Not Go Free as Male Slaves Do”: Developing Views About Slavery and Gender in the Laws of the Hebrew Bible

Do you have a copy of the entire paper? Are you just going by the abstract?

At risk of derailing, I want to respond to the issue of the Torah as word of God. In Judaism, our prophets aren't perfect. Part of reading the text is determining which parts might be negative role-modeling. And that answers "Why doesn't God change the text, remove parts, and make it perfect?"