Slavery in the bible discussion thread

[thenexttodie]

First, I think your premise here is a bit over-optimistic. The Israelites, throughout the Bible, seemed to be often not that interested in doing anything God told them or wanted them to do. Just like most of us are today.

And I think your argument evades the crucial point.

If you don't tell a child that doing X is bad, then they can't know it's not right to do it.

Given that Christians tend to portray God as being vastly superior to a human than an adult is to a child, then it is very difficult to explain this omission. And it IS an omission, it can't be simply explained away.

Well, it's not for you as you have said you don't hold that YHWH is omniscient/omnipotent, which kind of saves it from the metaphysical hole most Christians have dug for it (although one still wonders why you would call it a god, but that's a by-the-by)

Thank you for remembering I do not believe God is omniscient. I get tired of constantly having to explain this to people.

You have sort of made your argument in different way I think than most people would. Especially by pointing out that 2 of the 10 Commandments are basically the same, so why didn't God omit one of them and replace it with a Law against slavery?

I have been thinking a lot about this the last few days. I have searched the net to see how a couple other Christians, who are a lot smarter than I am, would answer this and I was not satisfied. But because you are a smart guy, I feel you deserve an answer which not only might be valid but would also be something completely original.

I think that one reason that God did not forbid slavery is that it would have caused many Israelites to seek out enslavement elsewhere. I think I am the first human to ever posit th<is idea. And I think it sorta ties in with a few things I have said elsewhere in this thread.

Given that 4 of the commandments are basically rules of worship (2 just iterating the same notion of not worshiping other gods), it is difficult to understand how these supersede the horror of slavery.

On problem with my arugment is that God provided the Israelites with mana, meat and clothing, So why would and what to be, or need a slave? II am drunk as fuck right now so I am sorry if I don't make much sence. I bet this whole post comes out completely fucked. Sorry bro.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Thank you for remembering I do not believe God is omniscient. I get tired of constantly having to explain this to people.

I can well understand - I think personal opinions and takes are vital when it comes to the biggest questions.

You have sort of made your argument in different way I think than most people would. Especially by pointing out that 2 of the 10 Commandments are basically the same, so why didn't God omit one of them and replace it with a Law against slavery?

I have been thinking a lot about this the last few days. I have searched the net to see how a couple other Christians, who are a lot smarter than I am, would answer this and I was not satisfied. But because you are a smart guy, I feel you deserve an answer which not only might be valid but would also be something completely original.

To be honest, that you think about it is more than most achieve. Too many religious people are asleep at the wheel.

Incidentally, I know most of the better known apologetics - I either heard it when I was a Christian, or have heard it since to lull those who don't really want to think back to sleep. Better to have a pop at it yourself and see if your own answer satisfies you - my role in your answer is by-the-by really.

One big problem with the most ardent theists is that they act as if acknowledging an error or a problem with Christianity/the Christian narrative means the entire edifice will fall. You can see that with a certain member here, and it's all too sadly common. When one thinks about the historical path by which the Bible was collected, collated, selected, edited, and translated endlessly through cultures and times, it's so much more realistic to see it as a book written by people who believed in YHWH, but who had no better reasons for believing than we do today, and who were a lot less knowledgeable and civilized. In this context, I don't see why it should be difficult to simultaneously consider the Bible and the content of the Bible of suspiciously fallible human provenance while still maintaining belief in the god.

I think that one reason that God did not forbid slavery is that it would have caused many Israelites to seek out enslavement elsewhere. I think I am the first human to ever posit th<is idea. And I think it sorta ties in with a few things I have said elsewhere in this thread.

...

On problem with my arugment is that God provided the Israelites with mana, meat and clothing, So why would and what to be, or need a slave? II am drunk as fuck right now so I am sorry if I don't make much sence. I bet this whole post comes out completely fucked. Sorry bro.

:lol:

Yeah, I am not really clear as to what this means to be honest.

The only thing I can take from it is that had slavery been banned, they would have done some other nasty thing instead...? I am not sure that really follows, but more importantly, there are few things as nasty and immoral as owning another human being, so I should imagine that the loss of a graven images was worth hundreds of millions of people being treated like animals.

 

[leroy]

Owning a human being is not intrinsically bad.

for example>
Big companies own athletes, athletes are forced to participate in competitions, if they don't do it, they would face legal problems.


the reason why this is not considered evil is because athletes where not kidnaped but rather they where volunteers, they voluntarily sold themselves to these companies.


Couldn't it be that God was condoning this kind of ownership (slavery)? not necessarily athletes but volunteers, I mean people who decided to sold themselves to their master for the sake of their own interests?

 

[Bango Skank]

Couldn't it be that God was condoning this kind of ownership (slavery)? not necessarily athletes but volunteers, I mean people who decided to sold themselves to their master for the sake of their own interests?

Why don't you ask God? Aren't you supposed to have a personal relationship with him?

 

[MarsCydonia]

Owning a human being is not intrinsically bad.

for example>
Big companies own athletes, athletes are forced to participate in competitions, if they don't do it, they would face legal problems.

the reason why this is not considered evil is because athletes where not kidnaped but rather they where volunteers, they voluntarily sold themselves to these companies.

Oh look, Leroy is doing the false-equivalence-slavery-apologist-dance.

Couldn't it be that God was condoning this kind of ownership (slavery)? not necessarily athletes but volunteers, I mean people who decided to sold themselves to their master for the sake of their own interests?

This question is easily answered for most people:
Step 1: Look at what professional sport player contracts are.
Step 2: Look at what the bible says about slavery.
Step 3: Use reason, be honest and do not attempt any false equivalence nonsense.

But slavery apologists avoid step 3 like the plague.

Again an exemple of how religious fanatism leads to moral degeneracy such as attempting to justify slavery..

 

[Visaki]

Owning a human being is not intrinsically bad.

Yes it is. Only a slavery apologist would say otherwise.

for example>
Big companies own athletes

No they don't. They have contracts with athletes to provide services.

, athletes are forced to participate in competitions

No they aren't, they agree to provide these services.

, if they don't do it, they would face legal problems.

Well at least you got something right. They could face legal troubles because they are breaking a contract.

the reason why this is not considered evil is because athletes where not kidnaped but rather they where volunteers, they voluntarily sold themselves to these companies.

They didn't sell themselves, they sell their services.

Couldn't it be that God was condoning this kind of ownership (slavery)?

Bible, and your God, condone both slavery and indentured servitude. He even might condone a normal employment relationship but I'm not sure the Bible says it's ok to work for someone for a compensation.

not necessarily athletes but volunteers, I mean people who decided to sold themselves to their master for the sake of their own interests?

Biblical slavery is clearly not limited to people "selling" themselves. It also includes kidnapping people for slavery and selling other people, including your children.

Also I'd like to point out that Leroy seems to think that the capability to label something "bad", "evil" or "wrong" somehow denotes the existence of objective, or more accurately superhuman, morality. This is not only wrong, it is stupid.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Slavery apology 101: pretend that today human beings are owned with an example of human beings not remotely being owned.

Already countered and shown to be an idiotic false equivalence a dozen pages ago. There is no equivalence between anything and owning a human being as a possession.

But what if... but what if... but what if? What if owning another human being is perfectly acceptable to God?

Then God is an asshat with no sense of morality. We're superior today to the supposed font of all morality.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

This question is easily answered for most people:
Step 1: Look at what professional sport player contracts are.
Step 2: Look at what the bible says about slavery.
Step 3: Use reason, be honest and do not attempt any false equivalence nonsense.

But slavery apologists avoid step 3 like the plague.

It appears to me that most of them avoid step 2 as well.

 

[Steelmage99]

Have we gotten to the part where somebody claims that parents own their children, in the same way that one owns a chair or a table?

 

[Sparhafoc]

Have we gotten to the part where somebody claims that parents own their children, in the same way that one owns a chair or a table?

I think that was on page 3, where tits are usually found.

 

[Visaki]

Have we gotten to the part where somebody claims that parents own their children, in the same way that one owns a chair or a table?

I think that was on page 3, where tits are usually found.

I wonder how fast I would be banned if I posted tits on every 3rd page of a thread in LoR

BTW you know the classical 10 commandments?

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

That seems to list wife among the possessions of thy neightbour, as the context seems to be a listing of property.

And yes, I know that it also talks about "servants" (most English translations do) but there is a real argument to be made that the translation is wrong. The original abad could be either slave or servant depending on the context (which in the bible mostly indicates slave), but the christian translators have traditionally translated it as servant. Probably because it makes the text more understandable to people who live in a world where slavery is frowned upon and due to the fact that the English translations were probably made not from the original Hebrew texts but other translations. Though I might add that some of the newest translations done from texts that are as close to the originals as we can get use the word "slave".

 

[Sparhafoc]

I have never coveted any of my male neighbour's asses - looks like I'm home free, chaps!

 

[Sparhafoc]

BTW you know the classical 10 commandments?

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

That seems to list wife among the possessions of thy neightbour, as the context seems to be a listing of property.

And yes, I know that it also talks about "servants" (most English translations do) but there is a real argument to be made that the translation is wrong. The original abad could be either slave or servant depending on the context (which in the bible mostly indicates slave), but the christian translators have traditionally translated it as servant. Probably because it makes the text more understandable to people who live in a world where slavery is frowned upon and due to the fact that the English translations were probably made not from the original Hebrew texts but other translations. Though I might add that some of the newest translations done from texts that are as close to the originals as we can get use the word "slave".

Yep, this would be better simplified to 'never covet thy neighbour's property'.

 

[Sparhafoc]

לא תחמד בית רעך לא־תחמד אשת רעך ועבדו ואמתו ושורו וחמרו
וכל אשר לרעך׃ פ

Gah just copying & pasting ancient Hebrew is difficult enough, let alone hermeneutically delving into the significance of terms. I wonder how many Christians even bother.

Regardless, the end of the translation is somewhat changed depending on the linguistic circumstances of the times, and the ancient Greek version is much more specific in ending with ".... or anything that belongs to your neighbour" - there's that concept of property, of ownership, which no Christian respondent in this thread really wants to address, although it was brought up immediately.

Of course, the reason for that is that they don't care what it actually says, just what they want it to say. Worse, though, is how little interest they show for this window into the ancient world. Ownership is society, as I explained to one of the 2 morons earlier in the thread. The most basic structure in any urban society is the recognition of division of goods, because any urban society is comprised of more than just a blood-related kin. The transition from nomadic to pastoralist/agriculturalist coincides with a dramatic increase in personal possession, in owning the land, in owning the products of one's labours, and consequently all over the world in these Bronze Age states we see an emphasis in laws on the nature of ownership, spelling out what can be owned, how it is owned, how ownership can be exchanged etc. The difference with the Bible is that these were set in a cosmic arena to match the beliefs of the ancient Hebrews and their traditions and cultures.

It should be very easy for any modern person to dispute and oppose the ownership of another human being, or of the murder of a village including its male children and the consequent capture of its virgins as spoils of war... but for some, they are stuck in the same tribalistic notions prevalent in the time of the Bible, and consequently struggle to even express negative feelings for such behavior, trying instead to sugarcoat it and protect their cherished beliefs from criticism.

What such fools don't realize is that people with genuine empathy, with a solid code of conduct and moral reasoning will find such behavior atrocious, and apologizing for it only slightly less so. This has no small part in the rapid loss of Christian adherents in Western nations, and there are still fools like the 2 chaps in this thread who pretend they're doing someone a favour by engaging in counter-factual bullshit. All they're doing is exposing their own beliefs as fundamentalist - no different from the fuckwits who do harm in their religion's name because their interpretation of holy dogma instructs it.

For every mindless goon who already sleep-walked through their belief system and buys into this guff, 10 more intellectually honest people realize that it's a sham.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

BTW you know the classical 10 commandments?

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

That seems to list wife among the possessions of thy neightbour, as the context seems to be a listing of property.

And yes, I know that it also talks about "servants" (most English translations do) but there is a real argument to be made that the translation is wrong. The original abad could be either slave or servant depending on the context (which in the bible mostly indicates slave), but the christian translators have traditionally translated it as servant. Probably because it makes the text more understandable to people who live in a world where slavery is frowned upon and due to the fact that the English translations were probably made not from the original Hebrew texts but other translations. Though I might add that some of the newest translations done from texts that are as close to the originals as we can get use the word "slave".

The translation could be correct, but as you state, it is listing of things seen as one's property. If one is able to see that the wife is seen as property, than so would be the servants. What is a servant that is also property called? I wonder if that is a simple enough question that dandan/leroy could answer it.

 

[leroy]

Slavery apology 101: pretend that today human beings are owned with an example of human beings not remotely being owned.

Already countered and shown to be an idiotic false equivalence a dozen pages ago. There is no equivalence between anything and owning a human being as a possession.

But what if... but what if... but what if? What if owning another human being is perfectly acceptable to God?

Then God is an asshat with no sense of morality. We're superior today to the supposed font of all morality.

yes that is what intellectually honest people do when they find themselves with a hard problem, postulate "what if s... " (hypothesis) a wait if research confirms or falsifies the hypothesis.


the hypothesis that I am postulating to solve the problem of slavery is that when God was condemning slavery he was talking about volunteers that willingly decided to sell themselves to their masters because they had no other option.


I am not saying that the hypothesis is true, (I still has to be proven) but if the hypothesis where true, the problem of slavery would be solved.


Of course, if things get very complicated and you start to corner me with strong arguments, I can simply proclaim "C" and ignore any objection using your methodology

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Slavery apology 101: pretend that today human beings are owned with an example of human beings not remotely being owned.

Already countered and shown to be an idiotic false equivalence a dozen pages ago. There is no equivalence between anything and owning a human being as a possession.

But what if... but what if... but what if? What if owning another human being is perfectly acceptable to God?

Then God is an asshat with no sense of morality. We're superior today to the supposed font of all morality.

yes that is what intellectually honest people do when they find themselves with a hard problem, postulate "what if s... " (hypothesis) a wait if research confirma or falsifies the hypothesis.

No. Intellectually honest people admit that they are wrong. They do not keep defending something wrong with hypotheticals and fallacies. That is the tactic of one who knows they are wrong, but do not want to admit it.

 

[Sparhafoc]

No. Intellectually honest people admit that they are wrong. They do not keep defending something wrong with hypotheticals and fallacies. That is the tactic of one who knows they are wrong, but do not want to admit it.

Intellectually honest people also don't condone slavery to try and protect a book of bollocks which they've lent ridiculous and illogical belief to.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

No. Intellectually honest people admit that they are wrong. They do not keep defending something wrong with hypotheticals and fallacies. That is the tactic of one who knows they are wrong, but do not want to admit it.

Intellectually honest people also don't condone slavery to try and protect a book of bollocks which they've lent ridiculous and illogical belief to.

The strangest thing about this is that dandan/leroy has already admitted that the Bible is not holy inspired by the deity he worships. Why he is trying to make excuses for it instead of just saying those parts are not inspired by his god is beyond me, but does speak volumes about his character.

 

[leroy]

No. Intellectually honest people admit that they are wrong. They do not keep defending something wrong with hypotheticals and fallacies. That is the tactic of one who knows they are wrong, but do not want to admit it.

sure and if you proof me wrong, I would reject that hypothesis