Whose Side Are You On, God's Or That Of Morality?

[Shadow Wolf]

If the slave wants to stay because he loves his master, then he is then aware of this regulation and HENCE DOES CONSENT.

They aren't asked if they wanted it. It's just given to them as a command.
And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his property. (Exodus 21:20-21)
If you want to have gratitude for your "former slave" status, why celebrate by making others slaves? Why be allowed to beat them? To pass them around as inheritable property?

 

[Skwim]

Your scenario presents a false dichotomy. I choose God's side who created and sees each person and a unique, valuable individual with free will and rights.

What false dichotomy is that?

The slavery or servanthood of the Bible was not the same slavery which you are portraying in which people are dehumanized.

So "slavery" has different meanings depending on who is condoning the practice. I see. You do realize, do you not, that when the translators of the Bible used a particular word it was because it conveyed the current understanding of that word. They didn't use the word "pimp" instead of "husband" in Matthew 1:19 to describe Mary’s husband Joseph, because it would be inaccurate. "Husband" was used because it conveys to us the relationship as we understand it. Likewise "slavery" was used because it best conveys the situation as we commonly understand the word.

God is opposed to such slavery.

Don't you wish. Does it mean nothing to you that, short of causing death, the owner of a slave may strike a slave as much as he wishes without being punished for it? (See below.)

“Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death” (Exodus 21:16). Similarly, in the New Testament, slave-traders are listed among those who are “ungodly and sinful” and are in the same category as those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers, adulterers and perverts, and liars and perjurers (1 Timothy 1:8– 10)."
Does the Bible condone slavery?

That's cute. Ever read the verse right after Exodus 21:16 ?

Exodus 21:17
17 “Whoever curses their father or mother must be killed.
​

Think this is moral? Of course you do, just like you believe Exodus 21:20 is moral

Exodus 21:20
20 “Sometimes people beat their slaves. If the slave dies after being beaten, the killer must be punished. 21 But if the slave gets up after a few days, then the master will not be punished. That is because someone paid their money for the slave, and the slave belongs to them.​

Similarly, in the New Testament, slave-traders are listed among those who are “ungodly and sinful” and are in the same category as those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers, adulterers and perverts, and liars and perjurers (1 Timothy 1:8– 10)."

Let's see,

1 Timothy 1:8-10
8 We know that the law is good if someone uses it right. 9 We also know that the law is not made for those who do what is right. It is made for those who are against the law and refuse to follow it. The law is for sinners who are against God and all that is pleasing to him. It is for those who have no interest in spiritual things and for those who kill their fathers or mothers or anyone else. 10 It is for those who commit sexual sins, homosexuals, those who sell slaves, those who tell lies, those who don’t tell the truth under oath, and those who are against the true teaching of God.
​

I note that it says nothing about owning people against their will, or abusing them for ones own pleasure, just selling them. And you think this justifies god's condoning slavery and his instructions on how to go about it? Get real InChrist.

.

 

[Jollybear]

They aren't asked if they wanted it. It's just given to them as a command.

Every culture has unigue regulations. The fact some slaves loved there masters and wanted to stay (that should tell you something right there) and wer aware of the regulation, they consented. They dont need to be asked if they want it. Its a regulation. It must be met. If the slave did not love his master, well he did not have to do this then. He could say like you "f# you *** hole" lol.

And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his property. (Exodus 21:20-21)

If you want to have gratitude for your "former slave" status, why celebrate by making others slaves? Why be allowed to beat them? To pass them around as inheritable property?

In the same chapter it says this

"An owner who hits a male or female slave in the eye and destroys it must let the slave go free to compensate for the eye. 27 And an owner who knocks out the tooth of a male or female slave must let the slave go free to compensate for the tooth."

The part your quoting deals with being punished with light beatings, none injury beatings that is, for breaking slave contracts.

However, if injury happens, looky looky, the slave has rights under the mosaic law here. The slave must go free.

Now the master does not benefit. And if the master dont benefit, gauss what? It be stupid for him to injure his slave.

God punishes the master by nulifying his contract if the slave gets injured.

You gotta put all this under the microscope and get the bigger picture.

We still got slavery today. It just comes in a different form.

 

[Skwim]

The problem is you are presuming the Christianity as the default "god" thereby marginalizing other world religions.

It's the god I want to talk about. Am I not allowed to talk just about the god of Abraham? Must I talk about all gods all the time?

.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Every culture has unigue regulations. The fact some slaves loved there masters and wanted to stay (that should tell you something right there) and wer aware of the regulation, they consented. They dont need to be asked if they want it.

Any sort of a body modification, unless medically necessary, should only ever be performed with informed consent. Staying may be consented to, but consenting to stay is not consent to have your body modified. And, do remember, even slaves (those bought with money, as the Bible says) are supposed to be circumcised, again without consent.

The part your quoting deals with being punished with light beatings, none injury beatings that is, for breaking slave contracts.

It's saying it's OK to beat them. This is wrong, any way you look at it, and you are defending and apologizing for it. You can beat someone very severely without blinding them, without knocking a tooth out, and without keeping them incapacitated for more than a couple days.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It's the god I want to talk about. Am I not allowed to talk just about the god of Abraham? Must I talk about all gods all the time?

.

You should be more specific. Christianity does not hold exclusive use rights over the terms "god" or "religion."

 

[Skwim]

Wow, if you just look beyond the mere label of slave, this looks pretty good.

Especially if one has managed to avoid a master who takes advantage of God Rule: B3-d, which was no doubt formulated because the practice of striking one's slave was not unusual.

"Exodus 21:20-21
20 If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. 21If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.​

.

 

[Kapalika]

I'm just suggesting you be more specific in the future. No need to take it so seriously. I also might have an agenda to make people say Yahweh and such instead of "God" so people stop conflating the two so much.

 

[Skwim]

You should be more specific. Christianity does not hold exclusive use rights over the terms "god" or "religion."

No. but why do you care so much what I do? Are you about to propose marriage or something?

.

 

[Skwim]

I'm just suggesting you be more specific in the future.

No, you said there was a problem.

No need to take it so seriously. I also might have an agenda to make people say Yahweh and such instead of "God" so people stop conflating the two so much.

Then I suggest that in the future you don't call things a problem when they're not.

.

 

[Kapalika]

No, you said there was a problem.

Then I suggest that in the future you don't call things a problem when they're not..

Oh, there is a problem. That as a culture people don't even know who "Yahweh" is, although a few more know the name "Jehovah". Everyone just thinks of "God" as the Christian, Islamic and Jewish one which is troubling. Rarely do we say "God" and mean Shiva or Vishnu or whatever.

Hence pointing it out, with the suggestion (to everyone, really) to use the god's actual name.

 

[Cacotopia]

Simply put adding "god" to any kind of explanation is just a made up answer to a reality that people did not understand, and through their own selfish need to get on the higher tree branch of the social hierarchy they came up with an answer to everything. No one knows for a fact that a god or any god is real and responsible for everything they proclaim gods to be responsible for.

And now with any new discovery that's made there are yahoos out there who are by choice scientifically illiterate as I would imagine a great many scientific discoveries are in conflict with belief. It is those people that in number outweigh those that accept demonstrable evidence that are straining the engine of technological and social progress.

Today we are still arguing with idiots about whether or not evolution is real, and flat earth retards. Yes the "god" nonsense has added a level of complexity that is in no way helpful to the progression of our species as a whole.

I imagine a humanity as a train. The ones in the engine cars, the scientists, the engineers, the doctors, and inventors yada yada yada, are pulling the rest of the world forward. But in the back, there are a few billion cars full of people that don't want to accept these new discoveries, and the train is only moving forward at a couple miles per hour.

If only we could pull the pin and disconnect these people from the train of humanity, don't let them have a say in what science tells us when they refuse to become informed on the subject matter themselves. You do't have to have a degree on the topic, but when there is a landslide of evidence supporting an idea, some people will somersault their way through a few thousand flaming hoops to keep their belief relevant. when it is clearly a thing of the past and should be abandoned.

 

[dfnj]

When it's been pointed out how immoral god was for cruelly killing innocent people for things they were not responsible for (consider the innocent children of Sodom who were killed when god set fire to the town) Christians typically explain it away by saying god killed these innocent people for a very good reason
.

The Bible must be read as representation of humanity not to be taken out of the historical context in which it was written. The essential message of the Bible that morality is really important is lost when you read it as literal truth.

 

[Kapalika]

If only we could pull the pin and disconnect these people from the train of humanity,

That choice of language is disconcerting. In any case, I see no reason why a belief in gods needs to conflict with a scientific understanding of the world.

Also, something I just recalled but morality in the Old Testament was largely based on economics rather than an evil as we would think of it today.

 

[Cacotopia]

That choice of language is disconcerting. In any case, I see no reason why a belief in gods needs to conflict with a scientific understanding of the world.

Also, something I just recalled but morality in the Old Testament was largely based on economics rather than an evil as we would think of it today.

I meant they should have no ability to take actions that affect the rest of us based on their beliefs. I would much rather prefer someone making decisions that affect the world based on scientific evidence rather than blind faith. Global decisions based on faith invite disaster. Their views hold zero weight in my book.

Does a particular view held by a majority make it correct? no it doesn't.


Was slavery moral back then? Or just an accepted common practice.. No I don't think it was moral, even back then.

Is it moral to justify slavery as an economic necessity back then, no I don't think so either. There is no credible excuse that justifies owning other people as property.

And further more by quoting just that sentence, and not the statements afterwards, you are taking it out of context, did I suggest we completely abandon these people? No, I did not. I said they should have zero say on policy they clearly have zero interest being informed on.

If you are a politician that denies climate change and passes legislature that would directly further climate change you should be fired and prosecuted. If you want to pass anti abortion laws but not pass legislature that would support a support structure for forced to term pregnancies, you should be fired and prosecuted. Caring about the birth but not the life post birth is complete BS and is criminal. They don't care at all about the children after birth that is absolutely clear. Otherwise those same obstinate stooges would be fighting to reform the state ward system, but no those pompous tool are only in it for the ratings and not the lives they are helping obliterate by shoving those kids into a system that is rife with physical, emotional, psychological, and sexual abuse. Good job there.

Anti Abortion laws only burden an already overburdened and fundamentally flawed and broken system. No i am positive no one here who is pro life actually cares about the lives they are chucking into the black abyss of those charnel houses.

 

[Kenny]

Your scenario presents a false dichotomy. I choose God's side who created and sees each person and a unique, valuable individual with free will and rights.
The slavery or servanthood of the Bible was not the same slavery which you are portraying in which people are dehumanized. God is opposed to such slavery.

"What many fail to understand is that slavery in biblical times was very different from the slavery that was practiced in the past few centuries in many parts of the world. The slavery in the Bible was not based exclusively on race. People were not enslaved because of their nationality or the color of their skin. In Bible times, slavery was based more on economics; it was a matter of social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their families. In New Testament times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, and even politicians were slaves of someone else. Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their masters.

The slavery of the past few centuries was often based exclusively on skin color. In the United States, many black people were considered slaves because of their nationality; many slave owners truly believed black people to be inferior human beings. The Bible condemns race-based slavery in that it teaches that all men are created by God and made in His image (Genesis 1:27). At the same time, the Old Testament did allow for economic-based slavery and regulated it. The key issue is that the slavery the Bible allowed for in no way resembled the racial slavery that plagued our world in the past few centuries.

In addition, both the Old and New Testaments condemn the practice of “man-stealing,” which is what happened in Africa in the 16th to 19th centuries. Africans were rounded up by slave-hunters, who sold them to slave-traders, who brought them to the New World to work on plantations and farms. This practice is abhorrent to God. In fact, the penalty for such a crime in the Mosaic Law was death: “Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death” (Exodus 21:16). Similarly, in the New Testament, slave-traders are listed among those who are “ungodly and sinful” and are in the same category as those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers, adulterers and perverts, and liars and perjurers (1 Timothy 1:8– 10)."
Does the Bible condone slavery?

Excellently said. Today people enslave themselves to banks (for their homes) and jobs (for substance). Both are done willingly to have provision. Not many people work for themselves anymore.

 

[Jollybear]

Any sort of a body modification, unless medically necessary, should only ever be performed with informed consent. Staying may be consented to, but consenting to stay is not consent to have your body modified. And, do remember, even slaves (those bought with money, as the Bible says) are supposed to be circumcised, again without consent.

Again, i go back on its a regulation, a sign on the body saying the slave wants to remain with his master. All parties involved do in fact consent because they have it done. Even if they dont like it, they do go along with it.

Remember i said slavery is still happening, it just takes on a different form? Well, i dont like elogs or paper logs driving a truck, but if i dont go along with it i cant drive. Its a regulation.

After the ear is pierced, it heals, and its a one time thing and everyone lives hapily ever after.

It's saying it's OK to beat them. This is wrong, any way you look at it, and you are defending and apologizing for it. You can beat someone very severely without blinding them, without knocking a tooth out, and without keeping them incapacitated for more than a couple days.

Its not just about an eye or a tooth. Thats merely examples. The issue is ANY form of injury. Break a arm, or a leg, stab, ect. These would also qualify the slave to go free. Free BEFORE the 7 year contract is over.

Also if youl notice again. God does not TELL the master he can beat his slave. True, he does not say he cant either.

You see, God gave rights to both slave and master in these laws.

In the same chapter exodus 21, i know this is not the slave part, but it does serve to show that God permitted the courts and judges to deal with things via case by case and modify based on changing circumstances.

"22“Now suppose two men are fighting, and in the process they accidentally strike a pregnant woman so she gives birth prematurely.c If no further injury results, the man who struck the woman must pay the amount of compensation the woman’s husband demands and the judges approve. 23But if there is further injury, the punishment must match the injury: a life for a life,24an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot, 25a burn for a burn, a wound for a wound, a bruise for a bruise."

Also going back to what i quoted before. God did directly say this

Deauteronomy 15:15

"Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and the LORD your God redeemed you. That is why I give you this command today."

Showing God told masters to be kind to there slaves.

Slaves had rights by these laws. But one of the rights of the masters was to punish contract breakers. But, that punishment could not be unreasonable.

Now i know you cant get around this beating slaves though. Like why did the punishment have to be a beating? Well, it couldnt be wage garnishment, different system. Again, some kind of punishment had to be allowed for breaking a contract. Its like all your doing is having sympathy for the slave and not the master. Dont you realize the masters wer driving the economy and gave the slaves a secure living. Either that or the slaves go live in the wild, which is not secure.

If a master has his contract broke, that placed a hardship on him, why is that OK to do?

Also the part about circumcision, even none slaves wer circumcised. Every isrealite male had this happen. Today we have this happen. I am circumcised, lol. Its not a big deal.

Let me elaborate a bit more on these rights of the masters.

A right and a command are different.

God gave rights to the masters to punish contract breaker slaves. A right says you can beat your slave, im not telling you to beat them, im not telling you not to beat them. Im telling you that you have a right to beat them. You may or may not exercise that right, that is up to you.

However if you exercise that right, you MUST NOT go overboard and injure.

 

[Faithofchristian]

When it's been pointed out how immoral god was for cruelly killing innocent people for things they were not responsible for (consider the innocent children of Sodom who were killed when god set fire to the town) Christians typically explain it away by saying god killed these innocent people for a very good reason, A reason we will never know, but is justified because god is good, and therefore would never do an unkind or immoral thing: God had an excellent and justifiable reason for killing innocent mothers and their babies; although, we will never know his reason or the justification.

For the non-believer this is hardly a convincing argument, but so be it, what else can the Christian say? However, speaking of god's pristine morality I ask you to consider the morality of SLAVERY; owning another human being; forcing that person to do unpaid work, and being permitted to beat him or her? Today, almost all peoples of the world condemn slavery because of its immorality. As has been pointed out:

"Although slavery does seem 'obviously wrong' it's worth listing some of the reasons why it's wrong.
1) Slavery increases total human unhappiness
2) The slave-owner treats the slaves as the means to achieve the slave-owner's ends, not as an end in themselves
3) Slavery exploits and degrades human beings
4)Slavery violates human rights: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights explicitly forbids slavery and many of the practices associated with slavery
5) Slavery uses force or the threat of force on other human beings
6) Slavery leaves a legacy of discrimination and disadvantage
7) Slavery is both the result and the fuel of racism, in that many cultures show clear racism in their choice of people to enslave
8) Slavery is both the result and the fuel of gender discrimination
9) Slavery perpetuates the abuse of children"
source​

In moral philosophy there's an ethical theory called deontology that states that the morality of an action should be based on whether that action itself is right or wrong under a series of rules, rather than based on the consequences of the action.

"Most deontologists argue that slavery is wrong because it violates a person's rights. They believe everyone has a right to life and to choose how they will live within the rules of society. Deontologists believe it is wrong to treat people merely as objects and tools, to treat people merely as a means to end.

So, slavery is wrong because it violates rights, fairness, and justice. It does not matter if slavery has good or bad economic consequences, it is wrong period. It does not matter if slavery promotes the greatest happiness for the greatest number, it is wrong because it violates the rights of one human being.
source​

Could there be better reasons for condemning slavery? I don't think so. Slavery obliterates an individual's self-governance or sovereignty. It takes over a person's life by others who have not obtained any authority to do this other than by the fact that they are mightier. YET! the Christian god thinks slavery is just fine: quite moral---presumably, if he thought it was immoral he wouldn't condone it.

In Exodus god even sets out rules for owning slaves. A few of them:

Exodus 21:2-3
2 When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. 3 If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him.

Exodus 21:7-8
7 When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. 8 If she does not please her master, who has designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed.

Exodus 21:20-21
20 If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. 21If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.​

and in Leviticus we are told:

Leviticus 25: 44-46
44 As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. 45 You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. 46 You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.​

And the acceptance of slavery didn't end with the arrival of Jesus Christ. The New Testament makes no condemnation of slavery and does no more than admonish slaves to be obedient and their masters not to be unfair.

Ephesians 6:5-8
5 Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ; 6 not by way of eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. 7 With good will render service, as to the Lord, and not to men, 8 knowing that whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether slave or free.

1 Timothy 6:1-2
1 All who are under the yoke [note the recognition of oppression] as slaves are to regard their own masters as worthy of all honor so that the name of God and our doctrine will not be spoken against. 2 Those who have believers as their masters must not be disrespectful to them because they are brethren, but must serve them all the more, because those who partake of the benefit are believers and beloved. Teach and preach these principles.
​

So, whose side are you on:

The side of those who feel slavery is wrong because it violates a person's dignity and rights. The right to life and to choose how one will live within the rules of society? Or on god's side, who doesn't care if slavery obliterates an individual's self-governance or sovereignty and, in fact, condones it?

.

For some unknown reason, You think to believe that it's God's that's at fault because humans beings sale themselves into slavery or buy a person to be their slave.

For everything that you quoted, had you notice in ( Exodus 21:2-3
2 When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. 3 If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him)

Note that it's humans who are buying and selling themselves into salvery,
Notice God is setting boundaries that a slave shall serve 6 years and then at the 7th year
that slave shall be set free) .
But with humans making slaves of one another it's life with no freedom at the 7th year.)
But with God a slave is to be set free at the 7th year. This being the slaves jubilee year of freedom.

All God is doing is setting boundaries around how to treat those who sold themselves into slavery or paid for someone else to be their slave.
It's humans beings that are committing slavery and not God.
All God is doing is setting boundaries around those who either sold themselves into salvery or someone that is put into slavery, that at the
7th year those slaves are to be set free from their slavery,
So God has set boundaries around those that sold themselves into salvery or paid for another human to be their slave. Are to be set free at the 7th year.

So it's not God that puts people into slavery, But people themselves who are committing slavery by selling themselves into slavery and people buying people putting them into slavery.

 

[Cacotopia]

Excellently said. Today people enslave themselves to banks (for their homes) and jobs (for substance). Both are done willingly to have provision. Not many people work for themselves anymore.

It's hard to work for yourself when the very system that totes itself as being the "land of opportunity" punishes you for being self employed.

I know, I am self employed and I incur an additional 15% on my taxes. Why? Cause I'm alone? Great let's crush the life out of the little guy even more.

 

[Cacotopia]

For some unknown reason, You think to believe that it's God's that's at fault because humans beings sale themselves into slavery or buy a person to be their slave.

For everything that you quoted, had you notice in ( Exodus 21:2-3
2 When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. 3 If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him)

Note that it's humans who are buying salves, Notice God is setting boundaries that a slave shall serve 6 years and then in the 7th years that slave shall be set free) .
Butt with humans making slaves of one another it's life with no freedom at the 7th year.)
( Exodus 21:2-3
2 When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. 3 If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him)


All God is doing is setting boundaries around how to treat those who sold themselves into slavery or paid for someone else to be their slave.

It's humans beings that are committing slavery and not God.

This is the flaming hoop malarkey I am talking about. But I see you failed to mention the loop holes directly after that in Exodus 21: 3-6. Who is taking things out of context now?

3 If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out alone.5 But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ 6 then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever.

If a slave says I don't love my master, but I love my wife and my children, but I have to love you in order to stay with them. Cool. Great back door into permanent slaves. Let's get those nails ready to drive through their ears now.