Leviticus 25
44“ ‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45You 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. 46You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life,..
In the above passage God is depicted as clearly and unambiguously condoning chattel slavery:
Considered property? Check.
Slaves for life? Check.
Can be bequeathed to children? Check.
What's interesting is the number of Christians who feel compelled to defend chattel slavery when faced with this.
The following from another poster is one of the most bizarrely absurd I've encountered:
Humans owning other humans is a fact of history.
The New York Yankees own its baseball players.
The Employer owns its employees.
The parents own their children.
The children own their parents.
Equating chattel slavery with employer / employee relationships?
Equating chattel slavery with parent / child relationships?
Why not simply assert that the depiction of God condoning chattel slavery by the Jews was wrong since it is antithetical to the teachings of Jesus?
Originally posted by @thinkofoneThe Bible was the sole voice against slavery dating all the way back to Mosaic times.
Leviticus 25
44“ ‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45You 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. 46You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them sla ...[text shortened]... doning chattel slavery by the Jews was wrong since it is antithetical to the teachings of Jesus?
Before the Mosaic law, people worked 24/7. In addition, most men were literal slaves including the entire Hebrew nation.
God then rose up Moses to free them, a clear repudiation of slavery.
You don't mention this, do you? You also don't mention that all slaves who remained slaves in the Hebrew nation were given the Sabbath to rest, something revolutionary at that time.
Hebrew slaves were freed every 7 years in addition to that. This form of slavery was more of a way for down and out Hebrews to survive until they could get back on their feet again.
As for the slavery you mention, I suppose it better for many to be a slave than killed because God had told the Hebrew nation to expunge the inhabitants.
The Bible clearly equates slavery with sin. God had not expunged sin from the world so there still remained slavery although there were still provisions for slavery. Likewise, God did not plan on divorce, although he still allowed for people to divorce due to the sinful nature of man.
The one thing that you did get right was Christ saying that he had come to set the captives free. It is interesting though that he did not condone slaves fighting for their freedom. Instead, he came to change the hearts and minds of men to set them free spiritually even though they may be still physically and slave.
Today, societies around the world, by in large, condemn slavery because of the Judeo-Christian heritage to condemn such slavery. However, the ironic part is that there are now more slaves in the world than at any other time in human history, albeit most of this is behind the scenes and in the darkness because society has openly rejected it world wide.
Thanks to the Biblical message, slavery has moved to the shadows rather than being out in the open, something you fail to mention.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
Originally posted by @whodeySomething 'you' fail to mention:
The Bible was the sole voice against slavery dating all the way back to Mosaic times.
Before the Mosaic law, people worked 24/7. In addition, most men were literal slaves including the entire Hebrew nation.
God then rose up Moses to free them, a clear repudiation of slavery.
You don't mention this, do you? You also don't mention that all slaves wh ...[text shortened]... avery has moved to the shadows rather than being out in the open, something you fail to mention.
'Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.' (Exodus 21:20)
(The above comes directly from God).
19 Mar 18
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeAs I said, it beat extermination of the inhabitants. It was either or.
Something 'you' fail to mention:
'Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.' (Exodus 21:20)
(The above comes directly from God).
The issue is why God dealt so harshly with the Canaanites. That is the theological conundrum being discussed here.
Originally posted by @whodeyThe Bible can't be reasonably be portrayed as being "against slavery", a "repudiation of slavery", etc. when it depicts God as unambiguously condoning chattel slavery. From what I gather slave owners in the antebellum South used the Bible in justifying slavery.
The Bible was the sole voice against slavery dating all the way back to Mosaic times.
Before the Mosaic law, people worked 24/7. In addition, most men were literal slaves including the entire Hebrew nation.
God then rose up Moses to free them, a clear repudiation of slavery.
You don't mention this, do you? You also don't mention that all slaves wh ...[text shortened]... avery has moved to the shadows rather than being out in the open, something you fail to mention.
People like you disingenuously try to spin the Bible into something it's not.
Also, since you seemed to fail to notice, the topic of the thread isn't "Slavery in the Bible". It's much more focused than that. Care to contribute anything to to topic of this thread besides your false dichotomy which amounts to little more than a juvenile rationalization?
- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
Originally posted by @thinkofoneWhy don’t you just come out and admit you’re an atheist?
The Bible can't be reasonably be portrayed as being "against slavery", a "repudiation of slavery", etc. when it depicts God as unambiguously condoning chattel slavery. From what I gather slave owners in the antebellum South used the Bible in justifying slavery.
People like you disingenuously try to spin the Bible into something it's not.
Also, si ...[text shortened]... hread besides your false dichotomy which amounts to little more than a juvenile rationalization?
God was working within a system set up by man, to whom He gave free will.
20 Mar 18
Originally posted by @thinkofoneThat is pretty much right.
The Bible can't be reasonably be portrayed as being "against slavery", a "repudiation of slavery", etc. when it depicts God as unambiguously condoning chattel slavery. From what I gather slave owners in the antebellum South used the Bible in justifying slavery.
People like you disingenuously try to spin the Bible into something it's not.
Also, si ...[text shortened]... hread besides your false dichotomy which amounts to little more than a juvenile rationalization?
Either you have to deny the Old Testament, or you have to make peace with the fact that it endorsed slavery.
I do not refer to it as "chattel slavery," though. I am not sure what the term "chattel slavery" could mean other than it is generally associated with the US slavery system.
Originally posted by @philokaliaEither you have to deny the Old Testament, or you have to make peace with the fact that it endorsed slavery.
That is pretty much right.
Either you have to deny the Old Testament, or you have to make peace with the fact that it endorsed slavery.
I do not refer to it as "chattel slavery," though. I am not sure what the term "chattel slavery" could mean other than it is generally associated with the US slavery system.
This is a false dichotomy.
While parts of the OT fly in the face of the gospel preached by Jesus during His ministry, other parts are consistent with it - notably with the later OT prophets. For example:
Ezekiel 18
21“But if a wicked person turns away from all the sins they have committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, that person will surely live; they will not die. 22None of the offenses they have committed will be remembered against them. Because of the righteous things they have done, they will live...
24“But if a righteous person turns from their righteousness and commits sin and does the same detestable things the wicked person does, will they live? None of the righteous things that person has done will be remembered. Because of the unfaithfulness they are guilty of and because of the sins they have committed, they will die...
30“Therefore, you Israelites, I will judge each of you according to your own ways, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent! Turn away from all your offenses; then sin will not be your downfall. 31Rid yourselves of all the offenses you have committed, and get a new heart and a new spirit. Why will you die, people of Israel? 32For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent and live!
I am not sure what the term "chattel slavery" could mean other than it is generally associated with the US slavery system.
From Wiki:
<<Chattel slavery, also called traditional slavery, is so named because people are treated as the chattel (personal property) of the owner and are bought and sold as commodities.>>
Originally posted by @divegeesterRead again:
Oh look it’s an anti god thread from the “words of jesus” man
<<Why not simply assert that the depiction of God condoning chattel slavery by the Jews was wrong since it is antithetical to the teachings of Jesus?>>
Do you do anything other than spew nonsense?
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
Originally posted by @philokaliaIndeed. And as the OT is the word of God (allegedly) it would be decidedly 'unchristian' to make peace with the idea of God endorsing slavery.
That is pretty much right.
Either you have to deny the Old Testament, or you have to make peace with the fact that it endorsed slavery.
I do not refer to it as "chattel slavery," though. I am not sure what the term "chattel slavery" could mean other than it is generally associated with the US slavery system.
So where does that leave us? Surely we have to go with the only other option you tender, to deny the Old Testament completely. - Then, of course, we have to take in consideration that a lot of the New Testament is dependent and intertwined with the Old, and that if we do indeed deny the OT we are left with no rational choice than to deny the NT as well. (None of it is the word of God).
It is then only a small step to the realization that there is no God at all, and the loving embrace of atheistic arms.
- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke<<It is then only a small step to the realization that there is no God at all, and the loving embrace of atheistic arms.>>
Indeed. And as the OT is the word of God (allegedly) it would be decidedly 'unchristian' to make peace with the idea of God endorsing slavery.
So where does that leave us? Surely we have to go with the only other option you tender, to deny the Old Testament completely. - Then, of course, we have to take in consideration that a lot of the New Tes ...[text shortened]... l step to the realization that there is no God at all, and the loving embrace of atheistic arms.
Did you mean to write, “It is then only a small step to the realization that Isaiah 55:8-9, Job 40:8, Isaiah 45:9 and 1 Corinthians 13:12 are correct?”
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Why did God institute a law that a run away slave could seek refuge ?
Deuteronomy 23:15,16
"You shall not deliver to his master the slave who has escaped from his master to you; (v.15)
He shall dwell with you, even in your midst, in the place which he chooses among your towns wherever he pleases;
you shall not oppress him." (v.16)
ThinkOfOne, I will not consider any explanation you give until you answer my question as to whether or not you even honor the EXISTENCE of God.
Until you have the baseline decency and courage to answer that direct question, i am not interested in any more "Bible Studies" with you.