Slavery in the Bible

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

I've answered this question before but ill answer again, im seeking for someone to paint me a picture of their god, one that is consistent with what i read in the bible,

You are not able to understand the Bible, nor are you able to understand the plan of salvation, as I've said before. None of the answers given so far will satisfy you and you will find reasons to criticize each one. Until you change your hostile mindset, you are self-condemning yourself to ignorance and gullibility.

FL

[outlaw]

I've answered this question before but ill answer again, im seeking for someone to paint me a picture of their god, one that is consistent with what i read in the bible, because i could easily create my own version but if it contradicts the character in the bible then i might as well just throw the bible away, so ultimately i want to understand how you reconcile the problems i find in scripture, if that leads me to god.
The problem i keep finding is that i can't see how the tags that get put on god are justified, so if anyone can justify them i'm all ears but if i find problems with your justification i'm going to point them out, i'm not just going to swallow what you dish up, it has to hold water
The other snag is, i want 'your opinions' i want to know how you solve the roadblocks im experiencing, so referring a book to me doesn't help me because i'm not interested in the opinions of author of a book.
I get the same thing with my wife who is a Christian, i ask her what she thinks about something and she tells me to ask her dad (who is a retired pastor) i tell her "but i don't want your dads view i want yours".
I care what you think because i happen to share this planet with many people who think like you and i'd like to understand them as best i can.

Thanks for that reply.

Well I share the opinion of Paul Copan. But here it is in a nutshell on the matter of slavery:

Slavery is bad - this is not God's will.
Slavery existed in Israel and also the surrounding countries.
This was a fact of society at the time and was embedded into it.
Abolishing it completely at the time would not have worked and would have cause more problems.
God established rules on how slaves should be treated so they are not mistreated.
Because of these rules Slavery in Israel became a way of people escaping destitution and poverty.
The rules that were applied allowed people in that situation to lead a much better life than the alternative and pay off their debts
After seven years of servitude they were allowed freedom.
A lot decided to stay with their masters as they were treated as part of the family and shown love.

Surrounding pagan cultures treated their slaves a lot worse.
Slavery today is a whole different way of treatment than it was in Israel and it is hundred times worse.

And because we know Slavery is not the will of God - Christians are leading the way to abolish modern slavery - "Stop the Traffic", "Hope for Justice" to name a couple.

As for specific verse about property Paul Copan has a very good answer for that which I remember agreeing with at the time - but I cannot recall what it was. I will have to go back to the book......or you can read it yourself

See you still haven't answered my questions, you have given me your take on gods rules for slaves and slave keepers but have avoided directly answering my questions again!!. I'm not typing them again I've already asked them too many times, go back and read my post if your going to answer.

God established rules on how slaves should be treated so they are not mistreated.

Um WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!! exodus 21 20:21 if you beat your slave with a rod and they die immediately you'll be punished but if they survive a few days that's fine because their your property. This is gods rule to ensure slaves aren't mistreated are you serious?

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

See you still haven't answered my questions...

The pot calling the kettle black?

I have asked you to tell us how many slaves work for you but have yet to get an answer. Do the test here and tell us:

http://www.slaveryfootprint.org

You won't be able to understand what slavery is until you admit that you benefit from it as well.

+ + +

For those among you who are not hypocrites, I met an acquaintance last night who had just returned from a one-year stint working for a foreign mining company in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso. Oliver told me that the locals work in awful conditions, in great heat and dust, with no protective equipment to speak of. They work long hours for a very low pay. The white & Chinese overlords work and live in air-conditioned comfort. After work, the locals get bussed to Ouagadougou in overcrowded, rickety vehicles (bus or truck). The overlords who wish to spend a night out on the town are brought to Ouagadougou in modern, air-conditioned minivans. Once in the city, bar-hopping overlords benefit from the favors of the most attractive of the local young women. Oliver told me that for $5, an overlord can rent a girl for an evening. For $20, you get 4 girls...it is not uncommon, Oliver said, to see old white guys with young black women...

The overlords benefit directly from this slavery, and so do we because the mining company's product is used in cell phones and computers and all manner of electronic equipment.

FL

[1over137]

I hate this world, FL.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

I hate this world, FL.

Dearest Hana,

I've spared you - and the other readers - the worst of what Oliver told me about his time in Burkina Faso.

FL

[RickD]

I hate this world, FL.

Dearest Hana,

I've spared you - and the other readers - the worst of what Oliver told me about his time in Burkina Faso.

FL

Don't hold back on our account. Let us hear it. We can handle it.

[outlaw]

outlaw wrote:
So is it acceptable to you that god gave rules to people back then in regards to keeping people as property and which included being punished only if they died immediately?
Are these rules for back then ok with you? Was it ok to treat people this way then?

Is it acceptable to me that God gave laws on the treatment of slaves? Yes, for the time and culture, it's acceptable to me. And they were to be punished life for a life, if the slave died right away from a beating. Go reread verse 21 again to see that if the slave didn't die immediately, there was still punishment. It just wasn't life for a life. Looking through modern glasses, it doesn't seem like a fair punishment to me. But modern glasses can be quite clouded.

*****Edit

Leviticus 20:9
If there is anyone who curses his father or his mother, he shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother, his bloodguiltiness is upon him.

That seems kinda harsh, looking through 21st century glasses, doesn't it?

You see you rephrased my question then just answerd your own question. Quote MY questions and answer them.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

You see you rephrased my question then just answerd your own question. Quote MY questions and answer them.

The pot is calling the kettle black, AGAIN!

HYPOCRITE!

FL

[RickD]

outlaw wrote:
So is it acceptable to you that god gave rules to people back then in regards to keeping people as property and which included being punished only if they died immediately?
Are these rules for back then ok with you? Was it ok to treat people this way then?

Is it acceptable to me that God gave laws on the treatment of slaves? Yes, for the time and culture, it's acceptable to me. And they were to be punished life for a life, if the slave died right away from a beating. Go reread verse 21 again to see that if the slave didn't die immediately, there was still punishment. It just wasn't life for a life. Looking through modern glasses, it doesn't seem like a fair punishment to me. But modern glasses can be quite clouded.

*****Edit

Leviticus 20:9
If there is anyone who curses his father or his mother, he shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother, his bloodguiltiness is upon him.



That seems kinda harsh, looking through 21st century glasses, doesn't it?

You see you rephrased my question then just answerd your own question. Quote MY questions and answer them.

The rules weren't given to Israel, in regards to keeping people as property. The rules were given to show how to treat the "property" they already had. Your question was worded to make it sound like God was telling people to own slaves. Instead of telling them how to treat them. I don't know if you intended it that way, so I gave you the benefit, and fixed your question to be more accurate.

You're welcome.

[outlaw]

outlaw wrote:
So is it acceptable to you that god gave rules to people back then in regards to keeping people as property and which included being punished only if they died immediately?
Are these rules for back then ok with you? Was it ok to treat people this way then?

Is it acceptable to me that God gave laws on the treatment of slaves? Yes, for the time and culture, it's acceptable to me. And they were to be punished life for a life, if the slave died right away from a beating. Go reread verse 21 again to see that if the slave didn't die immediately, there was still punishment. It just wasn't life for a life. Looking through modern glasses, it doesn't seem like a fair punishment to me. But modern glasses can be quite clouded.

*****Edit

Leviticus 20:9
If there is anyone who curses his father or his mother, he shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother, his bloodguiltiness is upon him.



That seems kinda harsh, looking through 21st century glasses, doesn't it?

You see you rephrased my question then just answerd your own question. Quote MY questions and answer them.

The rules weren't given to Israel, in regards to keeping people as property. The rules were given to show how to treat the "property" they already had. Your question was worded to make it sound like God was telling people to own slaves. Instead of telling them how to treat them. I don't know if you intended it that way, so I gave you the benefit, and fixed your question to be more accurate.

You're welcome.

I understand that god never instructed people to keep slaves, but he also didn't seem to have a problem with it. My questions never indicate that. I understand that god is saying if your going to keep slaves this is how they should be treated, You can beat them with a rod and not be punished as long as they don't die immediately, because they are your property.

Now, my question is. Do you agree that these are good rules to give people about how to treat another person?
In what possible context, situation, time period, social condition would the above rules on how to treat a person be acceptable to you?
Is there any time that you would be ok with keeping people as property and beating them?

If your father realised you were keeping your brother a slave and he put the rules in place that you could beat your brother as much as you want as long as you don't kill him, would you say these rules are good rules and are in place to protect your brother? What would you think of your father?

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

I understand that god never instructed people to keep slaves, but he also didn't seem to have a problem with it. My questions never indicate that. I understand that god is saying if your going to keep slaves this is how they should be treated, You can beat them with a rod and not be punished as long as they don't die immediately, because they are your property.

You seem to be softening up slightly, getting more intelligent. Congratulations! But you still have not accepted that you benefit from slavery today. When you make that leap in awareness, you'll be able to understand so much more about slavery in the Bible. You keep saying that you want to understand. Do you really want to understand or are you BSing all of us?!

You do not beat the slaves that work for you today but other people do, for you, by proxy. Other people kill them, and kill their families. That is the nature of the world we live in. How can you be so ignorant of the world around you? do you live on Mars?

Now, my question is. Do you agree that these are good rules to give people about how to treat another person?

I'm quite sure that the slaves that keep you in a cushy chair in front of your computer would appreciate being treated decently instead of having to work long hours for little money, not having enough food to feed their families, getting sick and dying young. As for a clear answer to your question, you will not be able to understand it until you accept your part in modern-day exploitation.

http://www.slaveryfootprint.org

Tell us: How many slaves work for you?

FL

[RickD]

outlaw wrote:
I understand that god never instructed people to keep slaves, but he also didn't seem to have a problem with it. My questions never indicate that.

It only seems to you that God didn't have a problem with slavery, because of your bias. None of the texts you've quoted say anything about whether God had a problem with slavery. The texts only show what God told Israel about treating slaves, and the punishment for killing slaves.

I understand that god is saying if your going to keep slaves this is how they should be treated, You can beat them with a rod and not be punished as long as they don't die immediately, because they are your property.

Apparently you need to reread the verse you wanted to show us:
Exodus 20:21
21 If, however, he [c]survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his [d]property.

This verse says that no "life for life" punishment will be required if the slave doesn't die immediately. It doesn't say there's no punishment.

Now, my question is. Do you agree that these are good rules to give people about how to treat another person?

Again, God gave these rules to a specific nation at a specific time in history. Taking into consideration everything about the ANE, then yes.

In what possible context, situation, time period, social condition would the above rules on how to treat a person be acceptable to you?
Is there any time that you would be ok with keeping people as property and beating them?

In the ANE at the time shown in scripture.

If your father realised you were keeping your brother a slave and he put the rules in place that you could beat your brother as much as you want as long as you don't kill him, would you say these rules are good rules and are in place to protect your brother? What would you think of your father?

That's a horrible analogy, outlaw. But, I'll attempt to work with it, using the context of the ANE.

If my brother owed me money that he couldn't repay, then he'd offer himself as my slave to work off the debt. If my brother became lazy, and stopped working to pay off what he owed me, and the punishment that the law required was a physical beating, then that's the punishment.

And as usual, you misunderstand my father's rules. He never said I can beat him as much as I want.

[outlaw]

outlaw wrote:
I understand that god never instructed people to keep slaves, but he also didn't seem to have a problem with it. My questions never indicate that.

It only seems to you that God didn't have a problem with slavery, because of your bias. None of the texts you've quoted say anything about whether God had a problem with slavery. The texts only show what God told Israel about treating slaves, and the punishment for killing slaves.

I understand that god is saying if your going to keep slaves this is how they should be treated, You can beat them with a rod and not be punished as long as they don't die immediately, because they are your property.

Apparently you need to reread the verse you wanted to show us:
Exodus 20:21
21 If, however, he [c]survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his [d]property.

This verse says that no "life for life" punishment will be required if the slave doesn't die immediately. It doesn't say there's no punishment.

Now, my question is. Do you agree that these are good rules to give people about how to treat another person?

Again, God gave these rules to a specific nation at a specific time in history. Taking into consideration everything about the ANE, then yes.

In what possible context, situation, time period, social condition would the above rules on how to treat a person be acceptable to you?
Is there any time that you would be ok with keeping people as property and beating them?

In the ANE at the time shown in scripture.

If your father realised you were keeping your brother a slave and he put the rules in place that you could beat your brother as much as you want as long as you don't kill him, would you say these rules are good rules and are in place to protect your brother? What would you think of your father?

That's a horrible analogy, outlaw. But, I'll attempt to work with it, using the context of the ANE.

If my brother owed me money that he couldn't repay, then he'd offer himself as my slave to work off the debt. If my brother became lazy, and stopped working to pay off what he owed me, and the punishment that the law required was a physical beating, then that's the punishment.

And as usual, you misunderstand my father's rules. He never said I can beat him as much as I want.

Thanks for finally giving me a straight answer, I don't know why it had to drag out so long though, now the fact that you can find a time and place that you think these rules are justified says a lot about how either the bible has conditioned and compromised your morality or as you as a person, so your stuck deciding whether to disàgree with these rules which would mean you think god isnt so moral. Now im sure you don't think that its ok to own people as property or beat them regardless of if your punished or not but at the same time you don't want to admit you think god was wrong.
Because I can't imagine a time or situation where I would accept these rules as justified, therefore I struggle to see god as moral for giving them to people.
God could of made it a rule that keeping slaves was a no go and issued a punishment for it but instead just made rules about it instead, so as far as I'm concerned he wasn't condemning it so he didn't think it was a problem for people to treat each other this way, I do.
To me these seem like man made rules, rules made by men for men of that day and age, not by an omniscient omnipotent omnibenevolent god. These rules to me only make sense if coming from man not a god and if they are from god its not a god I would call loving.

Would you agree these would be good rules today? If not why not? Why do you think they were OK for back then?

[RickD]

I have to apologize. I made a mistake on my last post. In my analogy, I said, "If my brother owed me money that he couldn't repay, then he'd offer himself as my slave to work off the debt. If my brother became lazy, and stopped working to pay off what he owed me, and the punishment that the law required was a physical beating, then that's the punishment."

I don't know where I got that from. A physical beating wasn't a required punishment for slaves. So I took outlaw's bad analogy, and made my own bad analogy.

Let's get back to the verses that outlaw originally had a problem with.
Exodus 21:20-21
20 “If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies [a]at his hand, he shall be punished. 21 If, however, he [c]survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his [d]property.

First off, these verses are not condoning the beating of slaves. They just lay out the required punishment if a slave is beaten and dies. For someone to say God condones slavery or beating of slaves from these verses, just shows your bias, outlaw.
Verse 20 is fairly simple to understand. If a slaveowner kills a slave in cold blood, the slaveowner needs to die as punishment.
Now let me try to explain verse 21 in a modern context.
A man owes a debt of $200,000. Outlaw, being a wealthy man, agrees to pay off the man's debt, if the man agrees to be outlaw's worker for 6 years, then he will go free with the debt paid. The man agrees.

One day outlaw and the hired worker (slave) get into an argument. In the heat of the argument, outlaw hits the man with a baseball bat. The worker dies. Outlaw must be put to death for murder. But if the man lives, he's sent to the hospital.

Then outlaw and the man appear in court for the incident. The judge sees the man's injuries, pain, and suffering. The judge requires outlaw to pay the man $200,000 in damages. Then outlaw tells the judge that the man agreed to work for him to pay off $200,000 in debt that the man owed. But since the man owed outlaw $200,000 as compensation for the debt, it's a wash.

Keep in mind, these verses lay out the punishment for the crime. They don't condone the crime. Only someone such as outlaw, with his anti-God, anti-bible bias, reads something into these verses that isn't there, to fit his agenda. And since he has been told this multiple times, and still continues to use these verses to say God condones slavery and beating slaves, it's pretty obvious that outlaw has no desire to learn.

For anyone else reading this thread who wants to understand the verses in question, this is where I got my analogy from.
http://www.revelation.co/2013/06/09/bib ... s-2120-21/

[Stu]

Very well put Rick.