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

neologist wrote:

mesquite wrote:
Neo?
Sorry. I have been researching the conditions imposed on slaves in non Hebrew nations in B.C.E. times and have not yet found enough to qualify for a post. Apparently there were as many different laws as there were classifications of slavery.

Understanding the different classifications of slavery within the Bible is also important. Most often Bible apologists try to minimize the accounts of slavery as being much different than what was experienced in the Americas and dismiss it as simply well kept bond servants that had to serve a maximum of six years. What they conveniently leave out was that was true only if:

The slave was a male

Exodus 21:7: "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do."

The slave was Jewish and if applicable...
The slave was willing to go out and leave his wife and children behind.

Exodus 21:1-4: "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself."

Should such a slave not wish to leave his wife and children for freedom, the law provided that he could remain a slave forever and be so marked.

Exodus 21:5-6: And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.

Non Hebrew slaves fell into the more permanent category of slave.

Leviticus 25:44-46: "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 will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly." (NIV)

neologist wrote:

I'm not ignoring you and I would not have resurrected Frank's post if I was not sure of my position. Nevertheless, and as I have often said, it is often a long leap from self assurance to rhetorical proof.

Especially so if the step to self assurance was a short one. To help gain some perspective on these slavery passages, consider their context as Frank pointed out here.

Frank Apisa wrote:

The revelations of Moses were supposedly given him while travelling through the desert with the people he had just freed from captivity in Egypt. But it is obvious to even a casual inspector of the narrative...that the entire of the Hebrew civilization was already in place and thriving when the stuff was written.

There were instructions on how to properly beat slaves...how to buy and sell them...for people who had just been released from slavery themselves and who had no slaves.

There were instructions on all sorts of things that any reasonable person (which obviously excludes most of the defenders of this nonsense)...would see to be for a functioning civilization...not a group of recently rescued slaves in distress in the desert. http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1904261#1904261

neologist wrote:

I see none of my fellow 'thumpers' have even dared to tread on this path. You gotta credit me with the iron jaw here.

If you would stand still long enough we might get a chance to test the ferrous content of that jaw. No credits given for traditional bobbing and weaving.

0 Replies

Thanks for the reference back to Frank

This is another of his unsubstantiated bloviations:

Frank Apisa wrote:

. . . There were instructions on how to properly beat slaves...how to buy and sell them...for people who had just been released from slavery themselves and who had no slaves.
. . .

The fact is that slavery was a fact of life long before the Exodus. Even Abraham had slaves. And the book of Exodus clearly claims that the Hebrews were accompanied by ". . .a vast mixed company. . ." (Exodus 12:38)

So I'm sorry if my need for accuracy has slowed my contribution to this thread. Some others have not felt the same need.

0 Replies

Yes, there were slaves during Abraham's time, most notably Hagar, Sarai's handmaid whom Abraham bonked. Good thing for him that the law about adultery had not been handed down yet.

Then there was the big circumcision party (Genesis 17) in which Abraham, his son, his slaves and any born in his house all got wacked. Holy moanin' Batman, look at that pile of skins.

None of that though changes the timing of when the laws were handed down to Moses.

0 Replies

Man making religious laws can be so narrow-minded, inhuman, and not safe for human genitalia. At least buddhists only shave their heads; hair will grow back.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

I don't get the chance to mention this often enough -- so let me jump at this opportunity:

The entire of the theological mythology -- or what I personally see as a "theological mythology" was, in my opinion, VERY, VERY enlightened for the people and time.

I think none of us should begrude the ancient Hebrews that.

Fact is, they needed a specific kind of god to protect themselves from the very specific gods of their "enemies" -- and they needed the force of a god to emphasize the need for rules and regulations necessary for an orderly society.

With that said, however, I do not extend those considerations to present day humans who still think this stuff holds water.

But of course, that is just my opinion.

Source: Frank's amazing post

The question remains, however:

Why did God not do away with it? Or, for that matter, why would God sanction the annihilation of the many city states inhabiting the Promised Land, states that had done nothing overtly to provoke Israel to attack?

Or why has not God put an end to war. Why has he allowed humans to suffer?

I've started a new thread for discussion, so this one may continue to focus on the original issue.

http://able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2715202#2715202

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Joe Nation wrote:
. . . Joe(Occasionally, I would like them to face what they believe and tell it true.)Nation
Exactly. And let one's belief not be clouded by desire for reward or license.

In an article about JWs, The Arizona Daily Star wrote:

Knock knock
They have a strong motivation to share their message. At Armageddon, believers will be resurrected and have everlasting life in a paradise on Earth, they say.

"Part of our job is to make disciples," Soler said. "But we also believe, living in the last days, that we're doing warning work. We're giving an opportunity to let people know about the end being close. It's up to the individual to respond to that. We really feel like we owe that to our neighbors."

Sounds like at least a little bit of reward carrot being dangled there and especially so when coupled with the warning.

0 Replies

mesquite wrote:

neologist wrote:
Joe Nation wrote:
. . . Joe(Occasionally, I would like them to face what they believe and tell it true.)Nation
Exactly. And let one's belief not be clouded by desire for reward or license.

In an article about JWs, The Arizona Daily Star wrote:
Knock knock
They have a strong motivation to share their message. At Armageddon, believers will be resurrected and have everlasting life in a paradise on Earth, they say.

"Part of our job is to make disciples," Soler said. "But we also believe, living in the last days, that we're doing warning work. We're giving an opportunity to let people know about the end being close. It's up to the individual to respond to that. We really feel like we owe that to our neighbors."

Sounds like at least a little bit of reward carrot being dangled there and especially so when coupled with the warning.

The Star missed an important point. Not only believers will be resurrected for a chance at life. Nearly all who through the ages have lived and died without knowing about God will have a similar chance. Perhaps they did not give Mr. Soler an opportunity to say that.

The situation will be different for those living in the time immediately preceding the end, however. Though all have a choice.

0 Replies

"The end" has come and past so often, when is the next "the end?"

0 Replies

It seems "soon" never comes - for over 4.5 billions years.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

It seems "soon" never comes - for over 4.5 billions years.

I'm not about to speculate on the time of the end. Nor should any one. But one of the reasons for God's forbearance is to settle once and for all the issue of whether man is capable of governing his own affairs.

In my own simplicity, I would have thought the determination of man's incompetence to have been long settled. Yet there are still those who cling to the belief that some human agency will eventually stop war and crime, feed the poor, cure disease . . .

0 Replies

Man will never completely learn to "govern their own affairs." That is too subjective of a goal. If past and current history is any indication of what we can expect for the future, there's nothing "promising" about man's ability to govern our own affairs.

0 Replies

My thoughts as well

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

mesquite wrote:
neologist wrote:
Joe Nation wrote:
. . . Joe(Occasionally, I would like them to face what they believe and tell it true.)Nation
Exactly. And let one's belief not be clouded by desire for reward or license.

In an article about JWs, The Arizona Daily Star wrote:
Knock knock
They have a strong motivation to share their message. At Armageddon, believers will be resurrected and have everlasting life in a paradise on Earth, they say.

"Part of our job is to make disciples," Soler said. "But we also believe, living in the last days, that we're doing warning work. We're giving an opportunity to let people know about the end being close. It's up to the individual to respond to that. We really feel like we owe that to our neighbors."

Sounds like at least a little bit of reward carrot being dangled there and especially so when coupled with the warning.
The Star missed an important point. Not only believers will be resurrected for a chance at life. Nearly all who through the ages have lived and died without knowing about God will have a similar chance. Perhaps they did not give Mr. Soler an opportunity to say that.

The situation will be different for those living in the time immediately preceding the end, however. Though all have a choice.

I can't see how that in any way lessens the impression of reward for belief. In fact I think it strengthens it.

That Arizona Daily Star article picked up quite a number of comments on the story which may be of interest to you.

0 Replies

mesquite wrote:

. . .
I can't see how that in any way lessens the impression of reward for belief. In fact I think it strengthens it.

All I can tell you is what it means to me. Certainly the idea of living forever on earth is appealing. Why would it not be? But early on I was impressed by the knowledge that there is no eternal punishment. Humans die anyway. I may die. But the promise is for most humans to have the everlasting life that Adam and Eve lost. In that I am no more qualified than anyone I meet on the street or exchange posts with on the net. As far as I am concerned, I already have the reward of not being trapped in the machinery of this society, its traditional obligations and beliefs. (Not that I could not have otherwise escaped.)

mesquite wrote:

That Arizona Daily Star article picked up quite a number of comments on the story which may be of interest to you.

There were some interesting comments here. A few even by people who knew what they are talking about. Witnesses obey NO TRESPASSING signs, but do not consider our work to be soliciting. Also, if a householder tells us not to call again, we honor that request. I, for one, would be unflustered by one appearing at the door nude or one performing the seven veils. I would simply excuse myself and perhaps leave a tract. ("I see you are busy, so let me leave this and perhaps return at a more convenient time." :wink: ) Being handed the Satanic Manifesto would encourage me much as my conversations with Doktor S have encouraged me. And I probably would contribute to the Jewish Relief Fund. Heck, I donate to the Salvation Army and shop at St. Vincent dePaul.

I think many could benefit from the advice of poster # 2.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

I think many could benefit from the advice of poster # 2.

They came by my house last Friday while I was at work so I missed the opportunity.

Did you see #93?

#99 was rather scathing from an insider.

#106 must be one of those that you can't get to stop talking.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

I have done not a small amount of research on the subject of slavery before our common era. Despite the fact that there were different degrees of slavery, if 'degrees' is the proper word, most societies apparently had in place regulations governing humane treatment. I say 'apparently', because in some instances there is very little remaining public record. In the case of the Hebrews, however, we have a document copied and recopied over the centuries with little, if any variation in text and may be fairly certain that what we read is what was written.

I take it then that you did not find any significant difference in the Hebrews vs others societies regulations governing slavery.

neologist wrote:

OK, so what was written and why? Or why, if the institution of slavery as it applied to ancient Israel would be considered brutal in our day, why would God permit it? Why would he legitimize it in statute? Those who seek an answer must look into the world situation as it existed 3500 years ago: Slavery had existed for centuries. The Jews had been slaves and had owned slaves. Slavery existed in virtually all the surrounding nations. So God saw fit to regulate it in a way that harmonized with his purpose for the Hebrews at that time.

Let's not forget that according to the story God had just done a significant whoop-assing on the Egyptians for enslaving the Hebrews. I can't believe you are trying to make the point that God determined what was sinful by what was commonly practiced. If so then why not just regulate prostitution, adultery, homosexual activity or any of the other 600 odd things that human beings commonly did that were forbidden by God's law?

neologist wrote:

It has oft been posted in this thread that the treatment of Hebrew slaves, particularly chattel slaves was far less humane than that of, let's say, a man who sold himself to pay a debt. Less humane by our standards, yes; but what of the standards of the day? To answer this, I quote none
other than our former, but still esteemed, resident churl, Frank Apisa!!!!!

Frank Apisa wrote:
I don't get the chance to mention this often enough -- so let me jump at this opportunity:

The entire of the theological mythology -- or what I personally see as a "theological mythology" was, in my opinion, VERY, VERY enlightened for the people and time.

I think none of us should begrude the ancient Hebrews that.

Fact is, they needed a specific kind of god to protect themselves from the very specific gods of their "enemies" -- and they needed the force of a god to emphasize the need for rules and regulations necessary for an orderly society.

With that said, however, I do not extend those considerations to present day humans who still think this stuff holds water.

But of course, that is just my opinion.

Source: Frank's amazing post

I am sure that Frank will get a kick out of your attempt to make your point with use the unsubstantiated bone he threw.

neologist wrote:

The question remains, however:

Why did God not do away with it? Or, for that matter, why would God sanction the annihilation of the many city states inhabiting the Promised Land, states that had done nothing overtly to provoke Israel to attack?

I think Frank also had some appropriate answers to those questions also. This was originally to a different question, but it fits those well just as well.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I have no idea of why a god would send ANY children to die -- unless the god is a psychopath or a scumbag. So perhaps the answer to your question is: Because the god is a psychopathic scumbag.

I'm not saying that necessarily is the case -- just that I cannot think of a more reasonable explanation for the god sending one son to be killed, so obviously I cannot think of a more reasonable explanation for sending more than one.

So where is this straw man of Frank's that you wanted to see torched? I see no straw man. It is very apparent in the Bible that God had no problem with slavery except for Hebrew males and he even allowed considerable latitude for their mistreatment.

Quote:

(Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)
If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master.[/b] But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever.

Can you say "family values"?

0 Replies

mesquite wrote:

Did you see #93?

I'd have come back.

mesquite wrote:

#99 was rather scathing from an insider.

I've been in the organization for over 30 years and have seen everything. Witnesses aren't perfect and don't claim to be. 99 is a whiner.

mesquite wrote:

#106 must be one of those that you can't get to stop talking.

I'm a man of few words, myself.

0 Replies

Quote:

I'm a man of few words, myself.

...and here I am, thinking you never shut the hell up.
...proof that we are don't necessarily appear to others as we think we do.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Quote:
I'm a man of few words, myself.

...and here I am, thinking you never shut the hell up.
...proof that we are don't necessarily appear to others as we think we do.

Frank Apisa, earlier in this thread wrote:

. . .
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?

Glad to see you have returned with your usual erudition.

0 Replies

One point for neo. LOL

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know