Was slavery condemned in the Bible?

[bodecea]

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?

Only on a RW message board would we have a thread discussing how slavery isn't a sin.

 

[Meriweather]

What you just elucidated was moral relativism. "Relative to "X," being sold into ownership is not so bad and "Slavery is wrong" is therefore not some absolute."

The point being skimmed over is that neither option is ideal or "right". Could there have been another option that buyer and seller did not envision? While a poor, mostly nomadic culture may not have felt there was any other choice, at the same time in the world, in settled cities, there were indeed women of independent wealth who ran their own businesses. Again, Monday morning quarterbacking. In the meantime, we should try for a little empathy and compassion for the poor who lived in ancient times.

 

[G.T.]

The point is, is that if the Old Testament Slavery Laws were the inspired words of God - this eliminates any excuse whatsoever for condoning its occurrence and it also entails Religious Moral Relativism, as opposed to Objective Morality as grounded in said God's nature.

The Bible did not deal in theory, but in reality. Moral Relativism and Objective Morality are later theories, similar to what occurs in the Sports world with Monday morning quarterbacking. My point (and belief) is that God does not look at the world or what is currently going on and then zaps it into proper order or behavior. Jesus once compared making a change to how yeast works...slowly, but in the end it leavens the entire loaf.

If something is in the works, is that moral relativism or objective morality? Perhaps that would be another debate for our Monday morning quarterbacking?

I respect your view, but it's more-so aligning with mine more and more. What you're describing is a Moral Evolution ~ something we'd expect to see being guided by mere Humanist/Secularism. If any of these actions were Immoral in some Absolute sense according to the Nature of a deity, then codifying these actions into an actual, divinely inspired Law as opposed to banishing them as THOUGH they were absolutely wrong is an in congruence. It's something that seems to need to be reconciled, which is why it's a topic of debate among PhDs.

Morals being absolute or relative is not some woo-woo, it's sort of one of the bed-rock philosophical arguments for the existence of a deity. That's what makes this Monday (Tuesday ) morning quarterbacking relevant for discussion.

 

[anynameyouwish]

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"

"slavery is considered a NOT GOOD SITUATION in the bible----both OT and NT. "

Not true.

In the OT god specifically says "you can take slaves from nations around you" and you can "sell your daughter into slavery"

no, I won't post the ACTUAL REAL passages that ACTUALLY DO EXIST.

It's your fkn bible
you claim to KNOW it

look it up for yourself.

 

[Meriweather]

Only on a RW message board would we have a thread discussing how slavery isn't a sin.

No one is saying that slavery is less than the ideal (definition of sin). Mankind definitely missed the target, the ideal. We are discussing how it came about. I imagine future generations will be doing the same with our abortion laws today.

 

[G.T.]

What you just elucidated was moral relativism. "Relative to "X," being sold into ownership is not so bad and "Slavery is wrong" is therefore not some absolute."

The point being skimmed over is that neither option is ideal or "right". Could there have been another option that buyer and seller did not envision? While a poor, mostly nomadic culture may not have felt there was any other choice, at the same time in the world, in settled cities, there were indeed women of independent wealth who ran their own businesses. Again, Monday morning quarterbacking. In the meantime, we should try for a little empathy and compassion for the poor who lived in ancient times.

You're only agreeing with me. They were a product of their times...and not even a Divinely Inspired Law could advise them that slavery was wholly wrong at the time.

 

[Meriweather]

What you just elucidated was moral relativism

No. Read it again. I did not elucidate any such thing. It appears that was inferred, not implied.

 

[MeBelle]

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

I had no clue!

Please post where the bible says that.

tia

 

[anynameyouwish]

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?

Only on a RW message board would we have a thread discussing how slavery isn't a sin.

to conservatives slavery is only bad when they can associate it with liberals and democrats.

That's why they insist that DEMS are the "party of slavery"

it is also why, on the one hand, they HATE Lincoln because he started the war of NORTHERN AGGRESSION and then, on the other hand, turn around and try to claim Lincoln is THEIR guy because he was the "REPUBLICAN WHO ENDED SLAVERY"

 

[G.T.]

This is also one thing, Slavery, condoned in the Old Testament that's abhorrent by today's standards.


THERE ARE PLENTY MORE

 

[presonorek]

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.

Do you have any evidence that the Bible is not the inspired Word of God OR is that your personal belief?

God wouldn't make gays and then tell people to hate them.

God is omnipotent and accountable to nobody. If He wanted to make gays and then tell people to hate them then He could totally do that.

On what basis do you have to believe that He wouldn't do things that you don't like? Humans do things that you don't like. A god would have even more autonomy than a human.

 

[G.T.]

What you just elucidated was moral relativism

No. Read it again. I did not elucidate any such thing. It appears that was inferred, not implied.

Sure you did, you did exactly that...you offered an excuse (dealing with the times) for a Deity to condone an immoral act, not only that but Codify it into Law. That's the literal definition of relativism. "relative to these times, this was what they had to do so its okay that God codified it"

 

[MeBelle]

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?

Only on a RW message board would we have a thread discussing how slavery isn't a sin.

Bodey, this discussion is about the bible, not 'current events'

On another note, when/why did you become so argumentative?
This is not the Bodey I used to chat with,

 

[G.T.]

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.

Do you have any evidence that the Bible is not the inspired Word of God OR is that your personal belief?

God wouldn't make gays and then tell people to hate them.

God is omnipotent and accountable to nobody. If He wanted to make gays and then tell people to hate them then He could totally do that.

On what basis do you have to believe that He wouldn't do things that you don't like. Humans do things that you don't like. A god would have even more autonomy than a human.

God is a theory, and you are here asserting what are and are not its "powers," which is a completely ridiculous exercise.

 

[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?

Only on a RW message board would we have a thread discussing how slavery isn't a sin.

By what standard do you say slavery is wrong?

Just because? I am interested in your moral argument against slavery. I am guessing you don't have one.

 

[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?

Only on a RW message board would we have a thread discussing how slavery isn't a sin.

Sorry, I don't follow. I found out I disagreed with both the left and the right on a lot of political issues. Now, I'd like to know how they arrived at some of their conclusions.

The way the word is defined intoday's dictionaries seems to infer (though not made clear) is that slavery applies to individuals, but in biblical times, the practice applied to groups and nations, etc.

If we apply the concept to corporations and governments, then by all accounts I am a slave.

 

[Meriweather]

Morals being absolute or relative is not some woo-woo, it's sort of one of the bed-rock philosophical arguments for the existence of a deity. That's what makes this Monday (Tuesday ) morning quarterbacking relevant for discussion.

Grin.

Morals, like ideals, are absolute. As we all know, they are not always practical, and the tendency is to let them slide until such time when something drastic occurs and society determines it must return to the ideal.

Slavery never was the ideal. For whatever reason, it became practical, even a perceived necessity--and then it opened the door to abuse. Because of abuse inherent in such a system, it could never be considered the ideal and is therefore a sin.

 

[Meriweather]

You're only agreeing with me. They were a product of their times...and not even a Divinely Inspired Law could advise them that slavery was wholly wrong at the time.

And nor can it in our own time. Divine Law reaches individuals, not nations, not even societies.

 

[G.T.]

Morals being absolute or relative is not some woo-woo, it's sort of one of the bed-rock philosophical arguments for the existence of a deity. That's what makes this Monday (Tuesday ) morning quarterbacking relevant for discussion.

Grin.

Morals, like ideals, are absolute. As we all know, they are not always practical, and the tendency is to let them slide until such time when something drastic occurs and society determines it must return to the ideal.

Slavery never was the ideal. For whatever reason, it became practical, even a perceived necessity--and then it opened the door to abuse. Because of abuse inherent in such a system, it could never be considered the ideal and is therefore a sin.

Aside from the "sin" part, I mostly agree. I just don't believe in Sin.

 

[G.T.]

You're only agreeing with me. They were a product of their times...and not even a Divinely Inspired Law could advise them that slavery was wholly wrong at the time.

And nor can it in our own time. Divine Law reaches individuals, not nations, not even societies.

Not even the Book inspired by the Divine's words? Because that's what we're discussing.

If we're going to venture off into the abstract, thats fine and we might as well do that at this point because our views are mostly in accord with one another, on the topic.