Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Instead of one of The 10 Commandments being something like "You should have no other gods than me"Never once does it condemn owning another human being or trafficking in humans. I know it was speaking to it's time. My issue is that, concerning slavery not being in high regard today, what else is relevant/irrelevant for our time. Of course, that should be for another thread... I suppose.
The first bit about it not being what we think about as American and European chattel slavery is true, because race as a concept wasn't involved. Instead it was a strata of what would be modern interracial xenophobia and misogyny and classism frameworks for slavery. And an Israelite man from a family in good standinf would have a much different experience than say a Canaanite woman, or a Hittite child (on the few occasions children weren't purged in the genocides.)Cue, "it wasn't like modern slavery, it was like having a boss" in 3, 2,....
The first bit about it not being what we think about as American and European chattel slavery is true, because race as a concept wasn't involved. Instead it was a strata of what would be modern interracial xenophobia and misogyny and classism frameworks for slavery. And an Israelite man from a family in good standinf would have a much different experience than say a Canaanite woman, or a Hittite child (on the few occasions children weren't purged in the genocides.)
But none of them would be like 'having a boss' in the same way debtors prison was not like 'having a job.' Because both those two concepts imply having a degree of agency that wasn't there.
100% agree. The nuance is there for people who want to talk about history, but not from bad faith positions that just want to play apologetics for slavery.I don't necessarily care what the motivation is for enslaving others. I don't think it's morally better to enslave someone because they're from another country or village than because they're from another race ("black" and "white" didnt even exist as racial categories in ancient Israel, anyway). So yes, the particular circumstances and rationalizations were different. But they're all morally indefensible, as far as I'm concerned.
And discuss. Thanks!
Cue, "it wasn't like modern slavery, it was like having a boss" in 3, 2,....
Let's not forget Exodus 21 2-6 where it tells you how to trick a person that has signed up for a seven year stint as an indentured servant into being a slave for life:
2If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free without paying anything. 3If he arrived alone, he is to leave alone; if he arrived with a wife, she is to leave with him. 4If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.5But if the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children; I do not want to go free,’ 6then his master is to bring him before the judges.a And he shall take him to the door or doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he shall serve his master for life.
I reference some in my thread on the Didache, that seem relevant. But I guess my question is, did the ancient people back then think of a slave like we think of it? In some cases certainly, but did they all have a lack of rights, and no ability to work their way from out? Granted that is bad as well
Is someone saying this? Because I'm not.
Kidnapping only applies to those with rights and privilege. For example subhumans can't be kidnapped because they are lesser than God's chosen people.Is someone saying this? Because I'm not.
That being said, the bible in Exodus 21:16 DOES forbid kidnapping. No one was supposed to be kidnapped, and this was punishable by death.
I think a big part of this problem is Christians interpreting the Jewish text for the sake of Christian ideas. Many of the ideas are too baked in to be adjusted, and the ambiguous meanings assigned to Jewish texts. For example salvation and Genesis being interpreted literally, which only causes more confusion among the many sects of Christianity and incompatible with Judaism. It's a catastrophe of incoherency. Anything goes.I did a word study on the word translated to "slave" by the King James Version bible. It encompassed at least ten words, which meant everything from "beloved house servant" to "field hand" and everything in between (yes, including indentured servant). As everyone knows, the bible has been translated from several languages over the centuries into various translations in today's languages, so this isn't necessarily surprising but it's problematic. I honestly don't know why this version stuck to one word to describe such a wide range of circumstances, but I also know that the term "slave" didn't carry the baggage of "chattel" that it does in the 21st century. Oh well, I don't typically use any King James version so there's that.
As the saying goes, none are so blind as those that do not see.Sorry, don't see the trickery there. And it's a six year indentured servitude, not seven years.