Was slavery condemned in the Bible?

[Porter Rockwell]

IIRC, the first slaveholder in the Bible was Abraham. If I'm not right, someone will correct me.

God put his own people into slavery for disobedience and he allowed his people to subdue other nations and take slaves. So, when, if ever, did it become a sin?

 

[Taz]

God wants to enslave all of mankind to his will. So says the bible.

 

[Pogo]

God wants to enslave all of mankind to his will. So says the bible.

As the old bumperstickers used to say ---- "Jesus Slaves"

 

[irosie91]

slavery is considered a NOT GOOD SITUATION in the bible----both OT and NT.
The kidnapping of a person for the purpose of ENSLAVING HIM----is considered a
crime tantamount to murder in the OT. The NT advises slaves to accept the situation without complaint. Slavery is advocated in the Koran for NON-MUSLIMS.
In fact, in the Koran -----one cannot actually ENSLAVE a muslim male. In order to
overcome the problem there is a principle called TAKFIR in which a person who thinks he is a muslim can be DECLARED "non-muslim" For some sunnis---
Shiites are "non-muslim" or in time of war----the "other side" can be declared
"non-muslim"

 

[presonorek]

IIRC, the first slaveholder in the Bible was Abraham. If I'm not right, someone will correct me.

God put his own people into slavery for disobedience and he allowed his people to subdue other nations and take slaves. So, when, if ever, did it become a sin?

Slavery is not a sin. Kidnapping is a sin worthy of death. In the later years of American slavery, kidnapping was a common method of obtaining slaves. The victors of war are morally justified by Biblical standards to purchase and sell slaves. However, slavery is illegal in every single nation in the world so this debate is stupid.

It is widely accepted in the world today that slavery is wrong. The people owning slaves today are likely committing crimes in the nation where they dwell.

Even if slavery was wrong it doesn't matter. Most of the Biblical references to slavery is about how to act as a slave and how to act as a master. That's because some people were slaves and some were slave owners. It was a volatile type of human relationship. It probably needed to be addressed at that time.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

IIRC, the first slaveholder in the Bible was Abraham. If I'm not right, someone will correct me.

God put his own people into slavery for disobedience and he allowed his people to subdue other nations and take slaves. So, when, if ever, did it become a sin?

Slavery is not a sin. Kidnapping is a sin worthy of death. In the later years of American slavery, kidnapping was a common method of obtaining slaves. The victors of war are morally justified by Biblical standards to purchase and sell slaves. However, slavery is illegal in every single nation in the world so this debate is stupid.

It is widely accepted in the world today that slavery is wrong. The people owning slaves today are likely committing crimes in the nation where they dwell.

Even if slavery was wrong it doesn't matter. Most of the Biblical references to slavery is about how to act as a slave and how to act as a master. That's because some people were slaves and some were slave owners. It was a volatile type of human relationship. It probably needed to be addressed at that time.

I have found nothing that suggests the practice is immoral or "wrong." We still maintain the master / servant relationship.

The haves automatically have credibility. If I try to endorse a product, who are you going to believe... me or Alex Trebeck? BTW, whole life is a rip-off FWIW.

The haves work the have nots for a mere pittance; get to dictate to the have nots and the only substantive difference is that the have nots can go home at night. We don't have any Rights, but we do have equal Rights with all, except those that we don't even know because the corporate bureaucracy hides the slave masters.

 

[irosie91]

IIRC, the first slaveholder in the Bible was Abraham. If I'm not right, someone will correct me.

God put his own people into slavery for disobedience and he allowed his people to subdue other nations and take slaves. So, when, if ever, did it become a sin?

Slavery is not a sin. Kidnapping is a sin worthy of death. In the later years of American slavery, kidnapping was a common method of obtaining slaves. The victors of war are morally justified by Biblical standards to purchase and sell slaves. However, slavery is illegal in every single nation in the world so this debate is stupid.

It is widely accepted in the world today that slavery is wrong. The people owning slaves today are likely committing crimes in the nation where they dwell.

Even if slavery was wrong it doesn't matter. Most of the Biblical references to slavery is about how to act as a slave and how to act as a master. That's because some people were slaves and some were slave owners. It was a volatile type of human relationship. It probably needed to be addressed at that time.

Kidnapping in biblical times was FOR THE PURPOSE of obtaining slaves and it
was considered a serious crime (sorta like a felony) Legal Biblical slavery is not chattel slavery. It is more like indentured servitude of a limited term. It was
considered a really lousy situation.

 

[irosie91]

IIRC, the first slaveholder in the Bible was Abraham. If I'm not right, someone will correct me.

God put his own people into slavery for disobedience and he allowed his people to subdue other nations and take slaves. So, when, if ever, did it become a sin?

Slavery is not a sin. Kidnapping is a sin worthy of death. In the later years of American slavery, kidnapping was a common method of obtaining slaves. The victors of war are morally justified by Biblical standards to purchase and sell slaves. However, slavery is illegal in every single nation in the world so this debate is stupid.

It is widely accepted in the world today that slavery is wrong. The people owning slaves today are likely committing crimes in the nation where they dwell.

Even if slavery was wrong it doesn't matter. Most of the Biblical references to slavery is about how to act as a slave and how to act as a master. That's because some people were slaves and some were slave owners. It was a volatile type of human relationship. It probably needed to be addressed at that time.

I have found nothing that suggests the practice is immoral or "wrong." We still maintain the master / servant relationship.

The haves automatically have credibility. If I try to endorse a product, who are you going to believe... me or Alex Trebeck? BTW, whole life is a rip-off FWIW.

The haves work the have nots for a mere pittance; get to dictate to the have nots and the only substantive difference is that the have nots can go home at night. We don't have any Rights, but we do have equal Rights with all, except those that we don't even know because the corporate bureaucracy hides the slave masters.

save it for the college coffee shop

 

[ding]

IIRC, the first slaveholder in the Bible was Abraham. If I'm not right, someone will correct me.

God put his own people into slavery for disobedience and he allowed his people to subdue other nations and take slaves. So, when, if ever, did it become a sin?

Slavery is not a sin. Kidnapping is a sin worthy of death. In the later years of American slavery, kidnapping was a common method of obtaining slaves. The victors of war are morally justified by Biblical standards to purchase and sell slaves. However, slavery is illegal in every single nation in the world so this debate is stupid.

It is widely accepted in the world today that slavery is wrong. The people owning slaves today are likely committing crimes in the nation where they dwell.

Even if slavery was wrong it doesn't matter. Most of the Biblical references to slavery is about how to act as a slave and how to act as a master. That's because some people were slaves and some were slave owners. It was a volatile type of human relationship. It probably needed to be addressed at that time.

Kidnapping in biblical times was FOR THE PURPOSE of obtaining slaves and it
was considered a serious crime (sorta like a felony) Legal Biblical slavery is not chattel slavery. It is more like indentured servitude of a limited term. It was
considered a really lousy situation.

Now I am forced to agree with you. Egads.

I would also add that the Jews treatment of indentured servants was heads and shoulders above their contemporaries. And that their condemnation of forced slavery was heads and shoulders above their contemporaries as well.

So jackanapes who point to slavery in the Bible as a negative don’t know their ass from a hole in the ground.

 

[G.T.]

IIRC, the first slaveholder in the Bible was Abraham. If I'm not right, someone will correct me.

God put his own people into slavery for disobedience and he allowed his people to subdue other nations and take slaves. So, when, if ever, did it become a sin?

Slavery is not a sin. Kidnapping is a sin worthy of death. In the later years of American slavery, kidnapping was a common method of obtaining slaves. The victors of war are morally justified by Biblical standards to purchase and sell slaves. However, slavery is illegal in every single nation in the world so this debate is stupid.

It is widely accepted in the world today that slavery is wrong. The people owning slaves today are likely committing crimes in the nation where they dwell.

Even if slavery was wrong it doesn't matter. Most of the Biblical references to slavery is about how to act as a slave and how to act as a master. That's because some people were slaves and some were slave owners. It was a volatile type of human relationship. It probably needed to be addressed at that time.

Kidnapping in biblical times was FOR THE PURPOSE of obtaining slaves and it
was considered a serious crime (sorta like a felony) Legal Biblical slavery is not chattel slavery. It is more like indentured servitude of a limited term. It was
considered a really lousy situation.

Beating a human was alright because it wasn't chattel slavery?

This makes it justified?

Female Hebrews could be sold by their fathers into slavery for life.

That's okay?

Only kidnapping Hebrews was punishable. Non-Hebrew slaves had no such rules. Leviticus 25:44

If a male slave sold himself into mslavery to pay debt, and had kids while enslaved, the kids became his master's property permanently.

That's okay?

How about rules in exodus: If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.




Treating your human slaves "less bad" than they were traditionally treated....makes it OKAY for what the literal God of belief condones?



Religion

 

[G.T.]

Folks miss the point when non-theists are invoking slavery in the Bible as an abhorrent paradigm. They scape-goat by saying "at the time" - - - - - like, "well, at the time, this was the least harmful version of slavery that had ever been achieved, so to call it bad is disingenuous, they were very different times!"

But that's a bad argument for defending a supposed morally objective, timeless being. Why that's not obvious, who knows! It flies in the face of moral objectivity, and boosts the argument that morals change as humans change them. It's an opposite-case for objective morality...and if we consider them subjective "by the times" like these folks do, then that comes with all of the fun surprises of moral relativism. Relative to...the times. Relative to... whatever their Dream Fairy commands.

We also might consider why...one that condones, and even commands, that if you beat your slave and he/she doesn't die, then you're free of punishment...is worthy of any type of worship. Pardon me but in my mind that'd be like worshiping a genocidal sociopath.

 

[irosie91]

IIRC, the first slaveholder in the Bible was Abraham. If I'm not right, someone will correct me.

God put his own people into slavery for disobedience and he allowed his people to subdue other nations and take slaves. So, when, if ever, did it become a sin?

Slavery is not a sin. Kidnapping is a sin worthy of death. In the later years of American slavery, kidnapping was a common method of obtaining slaves. The victors of war are morally justified by Biblical standards to purchase and sell slaves. However, slavery is illegal in every single nation in the world so this debate is stupid.

It is widely accepted in the world today that slavery is wrong. The people owning slaves today are likely committing crimes in the nation where they dwell.

Even if slavery was wrong it doesn't matter. Most of the Biblical references to slavery is about how to act as a slave and how to act as a master. That's because some people were slaves and some were slave owners. It was a volatile type of human relationship. It probably needed to be addressed at that time.

Kidnapping in biblical times was FOR THE PURPOSE of obtaining slaves and it
was considered a serious crime (sorta like a felony) Legal Biblical slavery is not chattel slavery. It is more like indentured servitude of a limited term. It was
considered a really lousy situation.

Beating a human was alright because it wasn't chattel slavery?

This makes it justified?

Female Hebrews could be sold by their fathers into slavery for life.

That's okay?

Only kidnapping Hebrews was punishable. Non-Hebrew slaves had no such rules. Leviticus 25:44

If a male slave sold himself into mslavery to pay debt, and had kids while enslaved, the kids became his master's property permanently.

That's okay?

How about rules in exodus: If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.




Treating your human slaves "less bad" than they were traditionally treated....makes it OKAY for what the literal God of belief condones?



Religion

you are not entirely correct-----the issues are EXPOUNDED upon in the
Talmud which actually rules that INJURING A SLAVE in any way requires
that the slave be set free-----and paid for his time. The legal code of the
bible was-----according to scholars ----A WORK IN PROGRESS. ----that's
the basis of the weirdo idea of "tikkun" As to the issue of "permanent slavery"--
it is not clear to me that it was a fact for anyone

 

[G.T.]

IIRC, the first slaveholder in the Bible was Abraham. If I'm not right, someone will correct me.

God put his own people into slavery for disobedience and he allowed his people to subdue other nations and take slaves. So, when, if ever, did it become a sin?

Slavery is not a sin. Kidnapping is a sin worthy of death. In the later years of American slavery, kidnapping was a common method of obtaining slaves. The victors of war are morally justified by Biblical standards to purchase and sell slaves. However, slavery is illegal in every single nation in the world so this debate is stupid.

It is widely accepted in the world today that slavery is wrong. The people owning slaves today are likely committing crimes in the nation where they dwell.

Even if slavery was wrong it doesn't matter. Most of the Biblical references to slavery is about how to act as a slave and how to act as a master. That's because some people were slaves and some were slave owners. It was a volatile type of human relationship. It probably needed to be addressed at that time.

Kidnapping in biblical times was FOR THE PURPOSE of obtaining slaves and it
was considered a serious crime (sorta like a felony) Legal Biblical slavery is not chattel slavery. It is more like indentured servitude of a limited term. It was
considered a really lousy situation.

Beating a human was alright because it wasn't chattel slavery?

This makes it justified?

Female Hebrews could be sold by their fathers into slavery for life.

That's okay?

Only kidnapping Hebrews was punishable. Non-Hebrew slaves had no such rules. Leviticus 25:44

If a male slave sold himself into mslavery to pay debt, and had kids while enslaved, the kids became his master's property permanently.

That's okay?

How about rules in exodus: If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.




Treating your human slaves "less bad" than they were traditionally treated....makes it OKAY for what the literal God of belief condones?



Religion

you are not entirely correct-----the issues are EXPOUNDED upon in the
Talmud which actually rules that INJURING A SLAVE in any way requires
that the slave be set free-----and paid for his time. The legal code of the
bible was-----according to scholars ----A WORK IN PROGRESS. ----that's
the basis of the weirdo idea of "tikkun" As to the issue of "permanent slavery"--
it is not clear to me that it was a fact for anyone

You missed the point, Rosie.

Slavery, at all, is wrong.

The Bible being a work in progress makes it not the inspired word of God, as an ipso facto, especially if it does (it does) condone beating your slave. Even if that's later amended in another, separate book, it's damning for the Bible being the "inspired word of God," as well as damning for objective morality as defined as grounded in God itself.

Then, the selling your daughters into slavery thing...the slaves being born into slavery thing...the different slavery rules for non-hebrews, as though non-hebrews don't deserve the same human rights....thing.

There really is no good argument for the way that the Bible condones slavery. That it's got some loopholes as compared to antebellum slavery is besides the point - it actually misses the point entirely.

 

[irosie91]

Folks miss the point when non-theists are invoking slavery in the Bible as an abhorrent paradigm. They scape-goat by saying "at the time" - - - - - like, "well, at the time, this was the least harmful version of slavery that had ever been achieved, so to call it bad is disingenuous, they were very different times!"

But that's a bad argument for defending a supposed morally objective, timeless being. Why that's not obvious, who knows! It flies in the face of moral objectivity, and boosts the argument that morals change as humans change them. It's an opposite-case for objective morality...and if we consider them subjective "by the times" like these folks do, then that comes with all of the fun surprises of moral relativism. Relative to...the times. Relative to... whatever their Dream Fairy commands.

We also might consider why...one that condones, and even commands, that if you beat your slave and he/she doesn't die, then you're free of punishment...is worthy of any type of worship. Pardon me but in my mind that'd be like worshiping a genocidal sociopath.

not entirely-----it means that the person is not guilty of Murder----any injury--------and somehow anything that draws blood is considered
"injury" must be compensated. -----which would be a MONETARY ISSUE---
actual injury means freedom for the slave. An interesting factoid----US law bases its definition of MURDER on the biblical principle-----which is KILLING WITH hatred ------in US law that is called "mens rea" Accidental or unintentional or "in a perception of need for defense" killing is called "manslaughter" In biblical law manslaughter could end up in EXILE to a special reserve city-----

 

[G.T.]

Folks miss the point when non-theists are invoking slavery in the Bible as an abhorrent paradigm. They scape-goat by saying "at the time" - - - - - like, "well, at the time, this was the least harmful version of slavery that had ever been achieved, so to call it bad is disingenuous, they were very different times!"

But that's a bad argument for defending a supposed morally objective, timeless being. Why that's not obvious, who knows! It flies in the face of moral objectivity, and boosts the argument that morals change as humans change them. It's an opposite-case for objective morality...and if we consider them subjective "by the times" like these folks do, then that comes with all of the fun surprises of moral relativism. Relative to...the times. Relative to... whatever their Dream Fairy commands.

We also might consider why...one that condones, and even commands, that if you beat your slave and he/she doesn't die, then you're free of punishment...is worthy of any type of worship. Pardon me but in my mind that'd be like worshiping a genocidal sociopath.

not entirely-----it means that the person is not guilty of Murder----any injury--------and somehow anything that draws blood is considered
"injury" must be compensated. -----which would be a MONETARY ISSUE---
actual injury means freedom for the slave. An interesting factoid----US law bases its definition of MURDER on the biblical principle-----which is KILLING WITH hatred ------in US law that is called "mens rea" Accidental or unintentional or "in a perception of need for defense" killing is called "manslaughter" In biblical law manslaughter could end up in EXILE to a special reserve city-----

I'm not picking up what you're putting down.

Owning a human is never okay. It's never BEEN okay. Nevermind you're condoned in beating them in certain ways, owning different types for different amounts of years, and able to sell your newborns into it.

That the Bible lays down ground-rules for their human ownership is a direct contradiction to Moral absolutism. It's Religious moral relativism. Directly.

 

[G.T.]

​

 

[irosie91]

IIRC, the first slaveholder in the Bible was Abraham. If I'm not right, someone will correct me.

God put his own people into slavery for disobedience and he allowed his people to subdue other nations and take slaves. So, when, if ever, did it become a sin?

Slavery is not a sin. Kidnapping is a sin worthy of death. In the later years of American slavery, kidnapping was a common method of obtaining slaves. The victors of war are morally justified by Biblical standards to purchase and sell slaves. However, slavery is illegal in every single nation in the world so this debate is stupid.

It is widely accepted in the world today that slavery is wrong. The people owning slaves today are likely committing crimes in the nation where they dwell.

Even if slavery was wrong it doesn't matter. Most of the Biblical references to slavery is about how to act as a slave and how to act as a master. That's because some people were slaves and some were slave owners. It was a volatile type of human relationship. It probably needed to be addressed at that time.

Kidnapping in biblical times was FOR THE PURPOSE of obtaining slaves and it
was considered a serious crime (sorta like a felony) Legal Biblical slavery is not chattel slavery. It is more like indentured servitude of a limited term. It was
considered a really lousy situation.

Beating a human was alright because it wasn't chattel slavery?

This makes it justified?

Female Hebrews could be sold by their fathers into slavery for life.

That's okay?

Only kidnapping Hebrews was punishable. Non-Hebrew slaves had no such rules. Leviticus 25:44

If a male slave sold himself into mslavery to pay debt, and had kids while enslaved, the kids became his master's property permanently.

That's okay?

How about rules in exodus: If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.




Treating your human slaves "less bad" than they were traditionally treated....makes it OKAY for what the literal God of belief condones?



Religion

you are not entirely correct-----the issues are EXPOUNDED upon in the
Talmud which actually rules that INJURING A SLAVE in any way requires
that the slave be set free-----and paid for his time. The legal code of the
bible was-----according to scholars ----A WORK IN PROGRESS. ----that's
the basis of the weirdo idea of "tikkun" As to the issue of "permanent slavery"--
it is not clear to me that it was a fact for anyone

You missed the point, Rosie.

Slavery, at all, is wrong.

The Bible being a work in progress makes it not the inspired word of God, as an ipso facto, especially if it does (it does) condone beating your slave. Even if that's later amended in another, separate book, it's damning for the Bible being the "inspired word of God," as well as damning for objective morality as defined as grounded in God itself.

Then, the selling your daughters into slavery thing...the slaves being born into slavery thing...the different slavery rules for non-hebrews, as though non-hebrews don't deserve the same human rights....thing.

There really is no good argument for the way that the Bible condones slavery. That it's got some loopholes as compared to antebellum slavery is besides the point - it actually misses the point entirely.

OK you have found flaws in the legal system of that time. You are insisting
that the bible be treated in Jewish law in the same manner that muslims treat
the Koran------as if DICTATED WORD BY WORD BY "gawd" AND ABSOLUTELY
ETERNAL. There are some americans who like to use the CONSTITUTION
OF THE USA in the same manner. An interesting factoid is that even the
Talmudic scholars did not promote that idea------back in the day. Even more
interesting-----there are some ??hadiths suggesting that muhummad suffered
from the same malady with which you are afflicted

 

[G.T.]

Slavery is not a sin. Kidnapping is a sin worthy of death. In the later years of American slavery, kidnapping was a common method of obtaining slaves. The victors of war are morally justified by Biblical standards to purchase and sell slaves. However, slavery is illegal in every single nation in the world so this debate is stupid.

It is widely accepted in the world today that slavery is wrong. The people owning slaves today are likely committing crimes in the nation where they dwell.

Even if slavery was wrong it doesn't matter. Most of the Biblical references to slavery is about how to act as a slave and how to act as a master. That's because some people were slaves and some were slave owners. It was a volatile type of human relationship. It probably needed to be addressed at that time.

Kidnapping in biblical times was FOR THE PURPOSE of obtaining slaves and it
was considered a serious crime (sorta like a felony) Legal Biblical slavery is not chattel slavery. It is more like indentured servitude of a limited term. It was
considered a really lousy situation.

Beating a human was alright because it wasn't chattel slavery?

This makes it justified?

Female Hebrews could be sold by their fathers into slavery for life.

That's okay?

Only kidnapping Hebrews was punishable. Non-Hebrew slaves had no such rules. Leviticus 25:44

If a male slave sold himself into mslavery to pay debt, and had kids while enslaved, the kids became his master's property permanently.

That's okay?

How about rules in exodus: If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.




Treating your human slaves "less bad" than they were traditionally treated....makes it OKAY for what the literal God of belief condones?



Religion

you are not entirely correct-----the issues are EXPOUNDED upon in the
Talmud which actually rules that INJURING A SLAVE in any way requires
that the slave be set free-----and paid for his time. The legal code of the
bible was-----according to scholars ----A WORK IN PROGRESS. ----that's
the basis of the weirdo idea of "tikkun" As to the issue of "permanent slavery"--
it is not clear to me that it was a fact for anyone

You missed the point, Rosie.

Slavery, at all, is wrong.

The Bible being a work in progress makes it not the inspired word of God, as an ipso facto, especially if it does (it does) condone beating your slave. Even if that's later amended in another, separate book, it's damning for the Bible being the "inspired word of God," as well as damning for objective morality as defined as grounded in God itself.

Then, the selling your daughters into slavery thing...the slaves being born into slavery thing...the different slavery rules for non-hebrews, as though non-hebrews don't deserve the same human rights....thing.

There really is no good argument for the way that the Bible condones slavery. That it's got some loopholes as compared to antebellum slavery is besides the point - it actually misses the point entirely.

OK you have found flaws in the legal system of that time. You are insisting
that the bible be treated in Jewish law in the same manner that muslims treat
the Koran------as if DICTATED WORD BY WORD BY "gawd" AND ABSOLUTELY
ETERNAL. There are some americans who like to use the CONSTITUTION
OF THE USA in the same manner. An interesting factoid is that even the
Talmudic scholars did not promote that idea------back in the day. Even more
interesting-----there are some ??hadiths suggesting that muhummad suffered
from the same malady with which you are afflicted

I'm suggesting that if some of it is trash and full of holes, there's no compelling reason to believe its over-arching and un-proven claim, the big one. The one that professed to know how everything got here.

Slavery is just ONE reason, of the multitudes.

 

[irosie91]

Folks miss the point when non-theists are invoking slavery in the Bible as an abhorrent paradigm. They scape-goat by saying "at the time" - - - - - like, "well, at the time, this was the least harmful version of slavery that had ever been achieved, so to call it bad is disingenuous, they were very different times!"

But that's a bad argument for defending a supposed morally objective, timeless being. Why that's not obvious, who knows! It flies in the face of moral objectivity, and boosts the argument that morals change as humans change them. It's an opposite-case for objective morality...and if we consider them subjective "by the times" like these folks do, then that comes with all of the fun surprises of moral relativism. Relative to...the times. Relative to... whatever their Dream Fairy commands.

We also might consider why...one that condones, and even commands, that if you beat your slave and he/she doesn't die, then you're free of punishment...is worthy of any type of worship. Pardon me but in my mind that'd be like worshiping a genocidal sociopath.

not entirely-----it means that the person is not guilty of Murder----any injury--------and somehow anything that draws blood is considered
"injury" must be compensated. -----which would be a MONETARY ISSUE---
actual injury means freedom for the slave. An interesting factoid----US law bases its definition of MURDER on the biblical principle-----which is KILLING WITH hatred ------in US law that is called "mens rea" Accidental or unintentional or "in a perception of need for defense" killing is called "manslaughter" In biblical law manslaughter could end up in EXILE to a special reserve city-----

I'm not picking up what you're putting down.

Owning a human is never okay. It's never BEEN okay. Nevermind you're condoned in beating them in certain ways, owning different types for different amounts of years, and able to sell your newborns into it.

That the Bible lays down ground-rules for their human ownership is a direct contradiction to Moral absolutism. It's Religious moral relativism. Directly.

the ancient biblical scholars described the biblical legal code as morally
relative ------WEIRD HUH? I will try to give the idea to you in Hebrew
(gawd help me!!! ) -----Torah midaber b'lashon ha'am" the rough
translation is >>> torah---which means something like Knowledge and Law----
uses the language of the people-----which means ---something like ---'that
which people can understand' The idea is that it had to be presented
according to that which could be "INJESTED" by humans at the time.
Try not to be so concrete in your thinking. ----in short----it ain't as absolute
as you SO DESIRE

 

[G.T.]

Folks miss the point when non-theists are invoking slavery in the Bible as an abhorrent paradigm. They scape-goat by saying "at the time" - - - - - like, "well, at the time, this was the least harmful version of slavery that had ever been achieved, so to call it bad is disingenuous, they were very different times!"

But that's a bad argument for defending a supposed morally objective, timeless being. Why that's not obvious, who knows! It flies in the face of moral objectivity, and boosts the argument that morals change as humans change them. It's an opposite-case for objective morality...and if we consider them subjective "by the times" like these folks do, then that comes with all of the fun surprises of moral relativism. Relative to...the times. Relative to... whatever their Dream Fairy commands.

We also might consider why...one that condones, and even commands, that if you beat your slave and he/she doesn't die, then you're free of punishment...is worthy of any type of worship. Pardon me but in my mind that'd be like worshiping a genocidal sociopath.

not entirely-----it means that the person is not guilty of Murder----any injury--------and somehow anything that draws blood is considered
"injury" must be compensated. -----which would be a MONETARY ISSUE---
actual injury means freedom for the slave. An interesting factoid----US law bases its definition of MURDER on the biblical principle-----which is KILLING WITH hatred ------in US law that is called "mens rea" Accidental or unintentional or "in a perception of need for defense" killing is called "manslaughter" In biblical law manslaughter could end up in EXILE to a special reserve city-----

I'm not picking up what you're putting down.

Owning a human is never okay. It's never BEEN okay. Nevermind you're condoned in beating them in certain ways, owning different types for different amounts of years, and able to sell your newborns into it.

That the Bible lays down ground-rules for their human ownership is a direct contradiction to Moral absolutism. It's Religious moral relativism. Directly.

the ancient biblical scholars described the biblical legal code as morally
relative ------WEIRD HUH? I will try to give the idea to you in Hebrew
(gawd help me!!! ) -----Torah midaber b'lashon ha'am" the rough
translation is >>> torah---which means something like Knowledge and Law----
uses the language of the people-----which means ---something like ---'that
which people can understand' The idea is that it had to be presented
according to that which could be "INJESTED" by humans at the time.
Try not to be so concrete in your thinking. ----in short----it ain't as absolute
as you SO DESIRE

I dont desire that it's absolute. Im outright saying that it's relativistic, and youre agreeing with me. There's no excuse for slavery, slavery light or anything of its kind...and an eternal all knowing being would NOT "inspire" the codification of such. THATS the point.

Thats weird.