Slavery, a Guide

[Clizby WampusCat]

I'm not defending this from the Bible. I'm denying that is what it is proposing.

“‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly. ~ Lev 25

This says people can become other peoples property. You say there is never a time when owning people as property is moral. So is God telling people to do an immoral thing?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I'm not defending this from the Bible. I'm denying that is what it is proposing.

But this is exactly what the Bible is proposing. "They shall be your property...The slave is his money..." The Bible very clearly states that humans can own other humans, with God's blessing.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

You are correct and I had forgotten, although in fact we are now apparently Post-Modern (although I remember books 15 years ago talking about post post-modernism).

Well, good to get that sorted out then.

I was thinking of contemporary, rather than modern, in particular some Christian who actually believes this. And there is little point debating Pastor Warren. He is never going to change his mind.

But his arguments live on after him, and can be made by other people. For someone fond of quoting a book written by people who have all been dead for at least 1900 years, I'm surprised you don't grasp this point.
Also, the dead man seems to be beating you handily in the debate.

Actually you have pointed out inconsistencies, Christians have addressed them and you just don't agree with their answers. That's your prerogative. But don't assume because you don't agree that you are right. If you were wouldn't all Christians be agreeing with you?

Sorry, do all Christians always agree? I thought that their history was a very long record of disagreeing with each other, right up to the present day.
And no, Christians have not addressed them. In fact, it's rather remarkable by how little Christians have been able to address the inconsistencies in the Bible regarding slavery.
I feel a bit like a teacher here:
- Teacher: your homework is incorrect. Please redo it.
- Student: There, I've redone it.
- Teacher: But you've made the same mistake again. Look, I'll explain the method again. Now please redo it.
- Student: There! I've redone it.
- Teacher: yes, but you've got it wrong again, in the same way.
- Student: Wow, what an unfair teacher! I keep redoing it, and he never marks it right!
The point I'm trying to make is that you don't get points for responding to a problem if your response doesn't make sense. Which it doesn't.

Perhaps you should consider this - even if you are right, wouldn't you rather be supporting the Christians who also wish to prevent slavery from coming back than the ones like Pastor Warren? So far your track record is to support Warren's views. Have you found a contemporary Christian who agrees with Warren?

You are sounding desperate, Wayne. Why would you be concerned about this unless we were actually right?
How about we just focus on whether or not the Bible is actually in favour of slavery, and leave the questions of what we should do about it for the Ethics and Morality section?

Only in the US and even then that is not strictly true, the war was a result of those that opposed abolition being gradually undermined by the abolitionist support in government. A war should not have been necessary - the rest of the western world managed without.

True, but they also managed without recourse to the Bible. They succeeded in showing that slavery was immoral, but not that the Bible taught it was immoral.

Likewise there is an explicit instruction to prevent people being unwillingly enslaved and then there are laws about how people who go willingly into service are to be treated.

No, there isn't. If you're referring to the order to not kidnap other people - well, first of all, it's been pointed out that this was only referring to Israelites. And second, "kidnapping" is illegal. Since slave trading was legal (according to the Bible itself) this was clearly just a measure to deal with unauthorised slavers.

I do feel that this is the key point, since it doesn't matter how many times I point out that the Hebrew word ebed means servant as in the role of serving someone, atheists come back and imply slavery.

Happy to deal with this. So, we have the Bible talking about servants, not slaves? Of course, these were servants who could be captured and made to serve against their will, who could he ordered to work and beaten when they didn't, as much as the owner liked, and who could be kept as servants for life, and their children kept as servants in perpetuity.
Sounds like slavery to me.

He starts with 'Had God, the Great Law Giver, been opposed to slavery, he would perhaps have said, “thou shalt not hold property in man: thou shalt not enslave thy fellow being". In other words as there is nothing specifically forbidding it, I can get away with it.

Read it in context, Wayne. In the context of Warren's whole argument, this makes perfect sense. God had plenty of time to talk about the things that displeased Him. He did so frequently. But He never once mentioned slavery. Indeed, the Bible goes out of its way several times to speak of slavery. More than that, God actually orders that people be taken and kept as slaves. And this sounds to you like Warren sneaking around God's back so he can "get away with it?"
Sure. Get away with what you were told to do and assured was right and proper. Right.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

It only matters what God thinks. Right?
So even if every human now disagrees with pastor Warren, does God disagree with pastor Warren? The answer is no.

This is, of course, exactly the right point. God's word trumps all else. Wayne, why are you disobeying God?

So you disagree with God. God thinks owning humans is fine. Which-is-to-mean, God deems it "moral". Otherwise, He would either not weigh in on the topic of slavery at all, for which you could argue He does not like (by default). Or, God would express His dislike.
So now what? This must mean your opinion is wrong. That's what.
This is likely one of @Clizby WampusCat 's points....

Exactly.

“‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly. ~ Lev 25
This says people can become other peoples property. You say there is never a time when owning people as property is moral. So is God telling people to do an immoral thing?

I must say, it seems pretty clear to me. That's exactly what God is telling people to do. This is a debating forum; a debate has winners and losers; and with that, @Silly Uncle Wayne , with you admitting that owning people is immoral and the bible clearly showing that it's okay to own people, we have won.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I must say, it seems pretty clear to me. That's exactly what God is telling people to do. This is a debating forum; a debate has winners and losers; and with that, @Silly Uncle Wayne , with you admitting that owning people is immoral and the bible clearly showing that it's okay to own people, we have won.

I do admire the fact that @Silly Uncle Wayne has spent a lot of time defending what he thinks the bible should say about slavery. He has stuck with it. But I think that his own morality does not allow for people to own each other and is trying to make the bible jive with it, which is what I think most people do even pastor Warren did this but it was a lot easier for him than @Silly Uncle Wayne to do based on what the bible actually says about slavery.

Only 25% of Americans think the bible is the inerrant word of God and to be taken literally and only 47% think it is inspired but not to be taken literally. I think Wayne should consider a different belief about the bible rather than trying to make it say what he wants it to say. There are many Christians today also doing what Wayne is doing about homosexuality. Trying to make it say God is ok with homosexuality when it clearly does not support it. If I became a Christian again I would cherry pick the verses I like and ignore the rest as people writing rules instead of god as most Christians in the US seem to be doing.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I do admire the fact that @Silly Uncle Wayne has spent a lot of time defending what he thinks the bible should say about slavery. He has stuck with it. But I think that his own morality does not allow for people to own each other and is trying to make the bible jive with it, which is what I think most people do even pastor Warren did this but it was a lot easier for him than @Silly Uncle Wayne to do based on what the bible actually says about slavery.

Only 25% of Americans think the bible is the inerrant word of God and to be taken literally and only 47% think it is inspired but not to be taken literally. I think Wayne should consider a different belief about the bible rather than trying to make it say what he wants it to say. There are many Christians today also doing what Wayne is doing about homosexuality. Trying to make it say God is ok with homosexuality when it clearly does not support it. If I became a Christian again I would cherry pick the verses I like and ignore the rest as people writing rules instead of god as most Christians in the US seem to be doing.

Why not just be honest about it? Why not just say, well, the Bible was written in a different time, and we have a different and hopefully better understanding of morality these days. The Bible may be pro-slavery, but we are not.
Why not just say that?
Perhaps because they are worried. If the Bible could be wrong about something so important, maybe it was wrong about other important things too...

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Why not just be honest about it? Why not just say, well, the Bible was written in a different time, and we have a different and hopefully better understanding of morality these days. The Bible may be pro-slavery, but we are not.
Why not just say that?
Perhaps because they are worried. If the Bible could be wrong about something so important, maybe it was wrong about other important things too...

It seems like a lot of Christians are. I don't see a problem with it that is worse than having to defend some of the stuff in there. As a Christian I would rather deal with how to know what is true and what is not in the bible than how to defend slavery etc.

When Matt Dillahunty brought up slavery to Ray Comfort, Ray said he does not believe all things that are in the bible to be true and slavery was one of them. Discussion was basically over.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Why not just be honest about it? Why not just say, well, the Bible was written in a different time, and we have a different and hopefully better understanding of morality these days. The Bible may be pro-slavery, but we are not.
Why not just say that?
Perhaps because they are worried. If the Bible could be wrong about something so important, maybe it was wrong about other important things too...

I think that I did say that the Bible was written at a different time. I didn't say that we have a better understanding of morality these days, because I don't think we do and because I think that what they were doing was right for them, for their culture and time - and I have no problem with that, but I do have a problem when people proclaim that that Bible says that masters can hurt their slaves with impunity or similar, because that implies that this is what the Bible is telling people to do, which it is not.

The failing, if any is to understand the morality that the Torah is proposing (Justice for all) and then seeing that it is exactly what most people today would like as well, even if the specifics are different for those people than they are for us.

 

[cvanwey]

I think that I did say that the Bible was written at a different time.

God's morals change?

I didn't say that we have a better understanding of morality these days, because I don't think we do and because I think that what they were doing was right for them, for their culture and time - and I have no problem with that,

In regards to slavery, it looks that the only ones who benefits, is/was the slave masters. I doubt being deemed lifetime property of a slave master is beneficial for any person/slave, at any time, in any circumstance?

but I do have a problem when people proclaim that that Bible says that masters can hurt their slaves with impunity or similar,

Then you might want to take this problem up with the writers of the Bible.

impunity - "exemption from punishment, penalty, or harm." --> "they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property."

because that implies that this is what the Bible is telling people to do, which it is not.

Again, it's not commanding that humans must do this to other humans. It merely states you may do this to other humans, with impunity. Please get it straight

The failing, if any is to understand the morality that the Torah is proposing (Justice for all) and then seeing that it is exactly what most people today would like as well, even if the specifics are different for those people than they are for us.

The failing, for which you continue not to grasp, as that you stated yourself you are not okay with lifetime slavery. And yet, God is.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

You speak like we are making this stuff up. We are not.

You can beat a slave with impunity. The slave is your property

I do have a problem when people proclaim that that Bible says that masters can hurt their slaves with impunity or similar, because that implies that this is what the Bible is telling people to do, which it is not.

The failing, if any is to understand the morality that the Torah is proposing (Justice for all) and then seeing that it is exactly what most people today would like as well, even if the specifics are different for those people than they are for us.

You say that the Bible proposes justice for all, but it also says that some people can be taken against their will, forced to serve others and beaten at their owner's whim, and their children after them.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

You speak like we are making this stuff up. We are not.




You say that the Bible proposes justice for all, but it also says that some people can be taken against their will, forced to serve others and beaten at their owner's whim, and their children after them.

No that is what you are saying it says, my point is that it is being woefully misinterpreted by people who are so far removed from the culture it seems beyond their comprehension.

It is clear that when you say 'owner's whim' you haven't actually read the whole of Torah, just the bits that you think you need to make a generic statement.

I'm currently making notes from Genesis, given that every atheist that approaches starts in the middle of Torah (Leviticus 25) and works out from there, rather than starting at the beginning and working inwards from their to determine what it is telling us.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

No that is what you are saying it says, my point is that it is being woefully misinterpreted by people who are so far removed from the culture it seems beyond their comprehension.

It is clear that when you say 'owner's whim' you haven't actually read the whole of Torah, just the bits that you think you need to make a generic statement.

I'm currently making notes from Genesis, given that every atheist that approaches starts in the middle of Torah (Leviticus 25) and works out from there, rather than starting at the beginning and working inwards from their to determine what it is telling us.

I'm afraid it's you who are reading it with the preconceived notions. You believe that the Bible is good, and so cast the most charitable possible light on any immoral or cruel aspects of it.
I, on the other hand, have no particular need for the Bible to be either right or wrong. I do not care what it says about slaves, and so simply follow the evidence where it leads. Of course I've read the Torah, or Old Testament. And the verses about slavery fit in just fine.
In essence, you simply refuse to believe that the Bible can contain immoral verses, even when staring them in the face. They simply aren't wrong because they can't be wrong. QED.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

No that is what you are saying it says, my point is that it is being woefully misinterpreted by people who are so far removed from the culture it seems beyond their comprehension.

I think at this point I'd like to quote this article, which I think puts it rather well:
Little-Known Bible Verses VI: Slavery

Especially the conclusion. And this is quite correct. These verses were not at all lost on slaveowners, who quoted them frequently and correctly. The abolitionist side would dearly have loved to be able to quote the Bible to support its anti-slavery message, but couldn't, because there was nothing there to quote. Why? Quite simply, because the Bible was written by a more primitive people than us, a people to whom enslaving others was natural and normal. The writers of the Bible said nothing against slavery, and a considerable amount in favour of it because to them, slavery was good and normal.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

I think at this point I'd like to quote this article, which I think puts it rather well:
Little-Known Bible Verses VI: Slavery

Especially the conclusion. And this is quite correct. These verses were not at all lost on slaveowners, who quoted them frequently and correctly. The abolitionist side would dearly have loved to be able to quote the Bible to support its anti-slavery message, but couldn't, because there was nothing there to quote. Why? Quite simply, because the Bible was written by a more primitive people than us, a people to whom enslaving others was natural and normal. The writers of the Bible said nothing against slavery, and a considerable amount in favour of it because to them, slavery was good and normal.

Isn't it just repetition of what you have already said, and also doing exactly what I said was the wrong approach. It too starts with Leviticus, it too interprets the whole subject based on that and it's conclusion is no better than what you have said.

Try this:

[Inspiring Philosophy - The Misunderstood Mosaic Law if the link doesn't work]

IP says pretty much what I am attempting to write down at this moment - you are looking at the Torah through Western Eyes, not through Israelite eyes.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

I'm afraid it's you who are reading it with the preconceived notions. You believe that the Bible is good, and so cast the most charitable possible light on any immoral or cruel aspects of it.
I, on the other hand, have no particular need for the Bible to be either right or wrong. I do not care what it says about slaves, and so simply follow the evidence where it leads. Of course I've read the Torah, or Old Testament. And the verses about slavery fit in just fine.
In essence, you simply refuse to believe that the Bible can contain immoral verses, even when staring them in the face. They simply aren't wrong because they can't be wrong. QED.

You mean when you read the Torah you have absolutely no bias whatsoever? Remarkable!

 

[cvanwey]

No that is what you are saying it says, my point is that it is being woefully misinterpreted by people who are so far removed from the culture it seems beyond their comprehension.

It is clear that when you say 'owner's whim' you haven't actually read the whole of Torah, just the bits that you think you need to make a generic statement.

I'm currently making notes from Genesis, given that every atheist that approaches starts in the middle of Torah (Leviticus 25) and works out from there, rather than starting at the beginning and working inwards from their to determine what it is telling us.

I started from the Beginning. When I get to the parts I do not agree with, then what? I conclude those parts could not have been inspired by a claimed "all loving God". What do YOU do?

 

[cvanwey]

@Silly Uncle Wayne Follow up Q's:

Is it logical for a subset of believers to think the Bible is a testament, using the Gospels, to demonstrate that Jesus really did rise from the grave to atone for humans? I would assure you would agree. Thus, is it also logical to assume that some of these individuals may not agree that the Bible is also a testament to allow slavery practices? Meaning, they believe such Verse is man-made alone?

Or, is it ALL or nothing, where the Bible is concerned?

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

@Silly Uncle Wayne Follow up Q's:

Is it logical for a subset of believers to think the Bible is a testament, using the Gospels, to demonstrate that Jesus really did rise from the grave to atone for humans? I would assure you would agree. Thus, is it also logical to assume that some of these individuals may not agree that the Bible is also a testament to allow slavery practices? Meaning, they believe such Verse is man-made alone?

Or, is it ALL or nothing, where the Bible is concerned?

People who don't really think about it will believe absolutely anything (including both of the above things you mention). However, if they believe that Jesus rose from the grave to atone for humans then they believe that Jesus had the ability to do that. If they believe that then they likely believe he was God and if they believe he was God, they would and should take note of what HE said and did, making it the basis of their lives. And if they use what he said and did as the basis of their lives there are a number of things that will never happen:
- they will never kidnap someone against their will
- they will never enforce their own will on other person
- they will never rape or molest anyone
- they will never kill or maim someone
- they will never knowingly degrade or debase anyone
- they will never knowingly force someone against their will to go back to a situation where any of the above could happen
- they will never actively go out of their way to prevent anyone from entering the Kingdom of God, or from someone enabling that

There are a few things that they would be doing:
- they will be prepared to sacrifice their own well-being for the benefit of other people
- they will actively make sacrifices in their own lives if it meant that God's Kingdom is expanded
- they will love their neighbour, helping those in need where they see it
- they will reach out to the despised of every culture and make them feel welcome

I think that will do for starters.

Now consider this. Does the version of slavery that you are proposing fit into that framework? If not, then it doesn't matter whether they think that this is the version proposed in the Torah or not.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

You are sounding desperate, Wayne. Why would you be concerned about this unless we were actually right?
How about we just focus on whether or not the Bible is actually in favour of slavery, and leave the questions of what we should do about it for the Ethics and Morality section?

Simple really, then: the Bible is not in favour of slavery.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Isn't it just repetition of what you have already said, and also doing exactly what I said was the wrong approach. It too starts with Leviticus, it too interprets the whole subject based on that and it's conclusion is no better than what you have said.

The content is not dissimilar. I think it's a shame you didn't spend more time reading it, as I think the article would have benefitted you. Especially the point it makes about how the bible has been extensively used by Christians throughout history to support slavery, a point you were corrected on but have yet to concede.

Misunderstood Mosaic Law if the link doesn't work]

I'm afraid I live in China, so I couldn't see the link you sent.

IP says pretty much what I am attempting to write down at this moment - you are looking at the Torah through Western Eyes, not through Israelite eyes.

(Save quote for future reference. Looks like it could come in handy).

You mean when you read the Torah you have absolutely no bias whatsoever? Remarkable!

Everyone who reads everything has a bias of some kind, of course, but there are biases and then there are biases. In my case, I'm pretty much neutral when it comes to the issue of slavery in the Bible. I'm sure this doesn't surprise anyone. Why should I care whether or not the Bible supports slavery? It makes no real difference to me either way. But for someone who believes that God is good and that the Bible reflects God's ideas - well, obviously they would be unhappy about the Bible being a pro-slavery document and would wish to deny, rationalise or dismiss the evidence that it is. Which is what we are seeing here with you.
I asked you before, and I don't think you answered: what would it mean to you if it turned out that God Himself was in fact in favour of slavery as an institution, and the slaveowners throughout history, from the Biblical to the antebellum South, were correct about God's will? Would that be a problem for you?
I think it would. I think that's the reason you're trying to twist the Bible to fit your preconceived agenda.

Now consider this. Does the version of slavery that you are proposing fit into that framework? If not, then it doesn't matter whether they think that this is the version proposed in the Torah or not.

If you are asking me, does slavery fit in to a framework of being kind, loving, self-sacrificing and good, then my answer is no, of course it doesn't.
But then you shouldn't be asking me. You should be asking the Bible. And your problem here is clear: you are looking at the Torah through Western Eyes, not through Israelite eyes.
To you, and to me - enlightened twenty-first century citizens of liberal democracies - it's clear that any definition of "being a good person" must include "being against slavery." But who told you that a Biblical definition of goodness included being against slavery? Since the Old Testament regulates and encourages slavery, and the News Testament encourages slaves to serve their masters well, we can tell that the Bible is a pro-slavery document; as for Jesus, He had ample opportunity to speak about slavery, and never said a word against it. Indeed, he refers to slavery a number of times, without any expression of disapproval.
To us, this would seem very strange indeed if we were to pre-assume (as you are doing) that the Old Testament, New Testament and Jesus were "good" and so opposed to slavery. But if you stop looking at the Bible through modern, western eyes it becomes clear that people in Biblical times - including Jesus - simply did not see slavery as being a bad thing, and so when they said that you could capture, buy, keep and punish slaves, and that it was a sin for a slave to disobey their master, and that you should be kind and good to others, they saw no inconsistency.

Simple really, then: the Bible is not in favour of slavery.

As you said: "People who don't really think about it will believe absolutely anything."