Why does the god of the Bible consider slavery to be moral??

Forums: Spirituality And Religion, Religion, Christianity, Bible, Slavery
Email this Topic • Print this Page

At Leviticus 25:44, the god of the Bible tells Moses:

"Slaves, male and female, you may indeed possess, provided you buy them from among the neighboring nations. You may also buy them from among the aliens who reside with you and from their children who are born and reared in your land.

Such slaves you may own as chattels, and leave to your sons as their hereditary property, making them perpetual slaves."

This particular quote is from a Catholic Bible -- but I have confirmed the passage in Protestant and Jewish Bibles -- and it is essentially the same. The major elements are in each:

1) You may own slaves both male and female.

2) You may purchase the slaves.

3) You may own them and treat them as chattels.

4) You may leave them to your heirs as hereditary property.

5) You may keep them slaves forever.

Why do you suppose the god of the Bible saw nothing wrong with slavery?

Supposing there is a GOD -- does it seem reasonable to suppose that the god of the Bible is GOD -- and that GOD thinks there is nothing wrong with slavery?

Does it seem reasonable to suppose that the passage reflects the sentiments of a god or GOD - or is it more reasonable to suppose that the passage sets forth the sensibilities of the ancient humans who wrote the Bible -- and that they simply put their ideas of the morality of slavery into the mouth of a god they apparently invented?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 30,850 • Replies: 701

No top replies

You don't suppose God was misunderstood by the guy that took down his words do ya?

0 Replies

Good question, Edgar.

In light of it, allow me to add another question to my list of questions:

If you think that the god of the Bible is GOD -- and you think that GOD would NOT give a thumbs-up to slavery -- what other reasons do you think would account for this (apparent) error in the Bible?

0 Replies

Moral is as moral does.

0 Replies

Quote:

Leviticus, called by Rabbinic writers "Law of the Priests" or "Law of the Sacrifices", contains nearly a complete collection of laws concerning the Levitical ministry. They are not codified in any logical order, but still we may discern certain groups of regulations touching the same subject. The Book of Exodus shows what God had done and was doing for His people; the Book of Leviticus prescribes what the people must do for God, and how they must render themselves worthy of His constant presence.
from: The Catholic Encyclopedia

Well, your quote are parts of the 'Old Testament'. Christians, especially Catholics, don't look at it like a 'bible' but more like a 'history book'.

And it's really quite a good history source, I think, in law and legal history!
When you want to know (and write) about the history of slaves - Leviticus should be in your biography.

You may have noticed, Frank, that religion changes, slowly, very slowly, but still alters some religious laws, opinions etc. .
And 'religion' describes, how God is alike (and what he thinks) - exactly in the spirit of time ... minus a couple of dozens of years.

I suppose, parts of the Old Testament were excellent guide for people living at the time(s= when written.
But without any litteral relevance for today.
("Don't take the Old Testament litterally", one of the first sentences I was taught at school in religion lessons.)

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

You don't suppose God was misunderstood by the guy that took down his words do ya?

Yep. And that 10 Commandments thing was supposed to be a shopping list. If we hadn't tried to guild that Tower to go up and talk to the guy directly, maybe everybody could be on the same page, linguistically speaking, but it wasn't meant to be.

0 Replies

Interesting link from South Africa:

http://www.southafrica.com/forums/showthread.php3?threadid=3072&pagenumber=1

0 Replies

Thanks for your post Walter

A few comments if I may:

You wrote:

Quote:

Well, your quote are parts of the 'Old Testament'. Christians, especially Catholics, don't look at it like a 'bible' but more like a 'history book'.

Well, the fact is though, that when Christians (including Catholics) want to establish that Jesus was the Messiah -- they use the Old Testament quite literally.

I agree that when they do not want the Bible to say what it does in the Old Testament, they do tend at that time to suggest that the information should not be "taken literally."

But even if one were to take the passage I cited "figuratively" rather than literally -- the same questions would apply -- would they not?

Quote:

And it's really quite a good history source, I think, in law and legal history!

Well I've read that many historians consisider it to be a rather slanted and biased history of the ancient Hebrews. And it does contain so much of what apparently is mythology, I have to question just how good a history it is.

The Egyptian captivity has been called fiction by historians.

Fact is, though, it is almost the only history we have of the ancient Hebrews -- so we have precious little against which to compare it.
When you want to know (and write) about the history of slaves - Leviticus should be in your biography.

Quote:

You may have noticed, Frank, that religion changes, slowly, very slowly, but still alters some religious laws, opinions etc. .
And 'religion' describes, how God is alike (and what he thinks) - exactly in the spirit of time ... minus a couple of dozens of years.

I suppose, parts of the Old Testament were excellent guide for people living at the time(s= when written. But without any litteral relevance for today.

I agree completely, Walter.

But the questions I've asked really are not influenced by that being the case.

The god of the Bible does seem to go out of his way to say that slavery is not something that bothers him very much.

There seems to be nothing in the Bible to contradict that.

If in fact the Churches built on the foundation of the Hebrew god have changed, what have they based their changes on?

0 Replies

Frank

I just wanted to say that the Old Testament is a better history source than "moral guide".

And "No", I don't think, serious historians ever thought of the bible as a reliable source either. But it could (sic!) certainly give some hints and explanations.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Frank

I just wanted to say that the Old Testament is a better history source than "moral guide".

And "No", I don't think, serious historians ever thought of the bible as a reliable source either. But it could (sic!) certainly give some hints and explanations.

Not only "could" but more than likely "does."

I agree.

Just trying to stir up a bit of discussion.

0 Replies

New Haven wrote:

Interesting link from South Africa:

http://www.southafrica.com/forums/showthread.php3?threadid=3072&pagenumber=1

Thanks for that link. I've never been to that forum before. I'll have to look it over.

0 Replies

This makes more obvious that the god of the christians is NOT real, just fancy evolve belief.

The bible is no more sacred than the 9 books of history, by Herodotus, since it has also some little mistakes, some mistakes in the bible include the siege of Jerusalem by an assyrian king, whcih the real result was the defeat of the hebrews, or the myth of the tower of Babel that was just a fancy story inspired in the Ziggurat, so the bible is little less than a history book.

0 Replies

Interesting question. If we read it through contemporary eyes, we may think it is a sort why-do-bad-things-happen-to-good-people, however, if we read it with a mind to the world in which the Bible was written, we see that slavery was the foundation of the economic system.

Coinage existed but the notion of exchanging coins for labor seemed not that widespread, if it existed at all. The other thing to remember was that the family was the model for all political and social structures and slaves were a little like children.

Furthermore, providing the basics of life was labor intensive to an unbelievable degree:just think how badly contemporary people fare on those PBS going back into the past shows. I believe Michael Wood in his program and book on the Trojan War wrote about the role of linen producers in life of the times. These were women skilled at making and weaving linen, kidnapped on raids to keep royal households in togas. I think his point was that Helen represented the kidnapped linen weaver.

0 Replies

Right!!!

They needed people to do the work -- so GOD told them slavery was okay.

Interesting.

0 Replies

Well, Frank - god does serve a purpose in your life. After all, he provides a great focus for your derision.

0 Replies

Because the bible was written by men at a time when bigotry was an accepted norm. c.i.

0 Replies

God was created in man's image.

0 Replies

plainoldme wrote:

God was created in man's image.

And the evidence is_____? Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Hey, y'all need to at least start at point 'A', before you start going around in circles. Your question about evidence would rightly have been asked if he had said "Man was created in god's image." did you read it right, NH?

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Hey, y'all need to at least start at point 'A', before you start going around in circles. Your question about evidence would rightly have been asked if he had said "Man was created in god's image." did you read it right, NH?

Jeez, Snood, I knew if you kept on posting, eventually you would say something reasonable -- something that mattered.

Now here you've gone and done it. Unfortunately, you've spoiled that amazing series of posts that went nowhere; did nothing; and contributed zip.

Oh well, I imagine you will start again very soon.

Or will you eventually shake whatever is bothering you and get back to posting with intelligence?

0 Replies

Why does the god of the Bible consider slavery to be moral??

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know