Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
“Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death.” (Exodus 21:16)
This verse, as well as many others proves that slavery in the OT was an economic-based contract that was entered into for debt repayment or simply to be cared for when a person was destitute. It was the only safety net for the poor in those times and had nothing to with race and was extremely regulated by law.
RESPONSE:
Please note that the sin here is kidnapping, not slave ownership.
Are you saying that chattel slave ownership in the American South was only done to help destitute slaves?
“Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death.” (Exodus 21:16)
This verse, as well as many others proves that slavery in the OT was an economic-based contract that was entered into for debt repayment or simply to be cared for when a person was destitute. It was the only safety net for the poor in those times and had nothing to with race and was extremely regulated by law.
RESPONSE:
Please note that the sin here is kidnapping, not slave ownership.
Are you saying that chattel slave ownership in the American South was only done to help destitute slaves?
As I said, you are presenting ONE kind of slavery as the whole picture and it is NOT. What you are talking about is more like what we would call indenture, but there was ALSO chattel ownership in which the slave was wholy the property of the owner and the ways of becoming that kind of slave were varied but included capture in war and purchase. THIS is the kind of slavery in which the slave could be beaten to within an inch of his life, but no penalty for the owner so long as the slave lasted a day or two.
Give ALL the facts and don't present half as the whole picture.
God does not support or condone slavery as it existed in the 17th century in the US. The above verse has proved such, as kidnapping Africans was immoral and punishable by death according to the Scripture. When the Scripture refers to 'buying' or 'property' it is referring to people who had given themselves into slavery due to bankruptcy or homelessness, not taken against their will. It also speaks of prisoners of war, which are paying off a debt for their crimes.
These are all circumstances that were regulated but never condoned or approved by God. Over and over, God, through His word seeks to affect the inside of a person. Your physical earthly situation was secondary to your spiritual situation.
Actually, it WAS one of the kinds of slavery back then. Just conveniently forget about the other kind, like when enemies were captured and/or the women of enemies were still virgin.....
That's what I meant. You never hear the flip side of the slavery coin from a fundamentalist.
We are frequently given scripture and the natural law as the basis for moral teachings. But can't those change?
Quote:
Originally Posted by StainedGlassWarrior
"For I, the LORD, do not change" (Malachi 3:6)
Nothing more to say, really.
Along with Malachi 3:6 is the similar thought found in the Christian Greek Scriptures (NT) in James 1:17: "...the Father of the celestial lights, who does not vary or change like the shifting shadows."
I think it helps to know that God has a name and it has meaning in answering the above question so consider the following:
The Hebrew language is a dynamic and action oriented language so that God's name YHWH is significant because ancient Hebrew was an action oriented language and an entity was counted on more in terms of behavior and less about appearance.
YHWH is thought by some scholars (although to be fair scholar opinions differ) to derive from the Hebrew verb "hawah" meaning "to be" or "to become" or more specifically a causative form of that verb( a causitive verb is an action that is caused to happen) thus some understand the meaning of God's name as "he causes to become."
Hence ancient Hebrews understood and Christians understand God will do what he has set out to do so that scripture does not need to change, however, the way in which God sets out to accomplish his will can vary. Based on Malachi and James, one can conclude that the God of the Hebrew Scriptures (OT) and the God of the Greek Scriptures (NT) are the same just different roles of the same God. If man can progress in both thinking ability and understanding then God's approach to accomplish his will can also change accordingly. The God of the OT establishing himself as the true God in contrast to the pagan gods roundabout (he was taking Abraham's offspring as his special people which wasn't easy since those ancient Hebrews were exposed to other gods, pagan practices), keeping his covenant with Abraham and his promise to bless all the nations through Abraham's seed, preparing the people for the arrival of the Messiah and providing laws "written in stone." The God of the NT, reflected by Jesus, laying the foundations for Christianity, concluding the Mosaic law and replacing the "laws written in stone" with Christian principles albeit the fundamental laws from the Mosaic Law were kept like the laws about murder, coveting, idolatry, etc., and opening up the way to salvation for all.
As I said, you are presenting ONE kind of slavery as the whole picture and it is NOT. What you are talking about is more like what we would call indenture, but there was ALSO chattel ownership in which the slave was wholy the property of the owner and the ways of becoming that kind of slave were varied but included capture in war and purchase. THIS is the kind of slavery in which the slave could be beaten to within an inch of his life, but no penalty for the owner so long as the slave lasted a day or two.
Give ALL the facts and don't present half as the whole picture.
>>What you are talking about is more like what we would call indenture, <<.
Not at all, I am talking about chattel slavery authorized by God in Leviticus.
1. The chattel slave is the property of the owner and all of its future offspring remain the owner’s property as well. This is the type of slavery which was authorized by God in Leviticus and practiced throughout the Roman empire and in the American south.
"44 As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. 45 You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you, and from their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. 46 You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property". (Leviticus 25:44-45)
2. Serfdom existed during the Middle Ages. The surf had rights but had to remain on the land he inherited or was given him by the ruler. Their children were not automatically surfs.
3. An indentured servant sometimes sold their lifelong labor to their master but that was the limit of their contract. Their children were not automatically indentured servants.
These are very different types of servitude. Chattel slavery is authorized by God in scripture, and, as late as the American Civil war it was still being practiced.
"Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, .... It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given. [Instruction of the Holy Office, June 1866]
Last edited by Aristotle's Child; 10-11-2014 at 09:46 AM..
Reason: typo
This verse, as well as many others proves that slavery in the OT was an economic-based contract that was entered into for debt repayment or simply to be cared for when a person was destitute. It was the only safety net for the poor in those times and had nothing to with race and was extremely regulated by law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nateswift
As I said, you are presenting ONE kind of slavery as the whole picture and it is NOT. What you are talking about is more like what we would call indenture, but there was ALSO chattel ownership in which the slave was wholy the property of the owner and the ways of becoming that kind of slave were varied but included capture in war and purchase. THIS is the kind of slavery in which the slave could be beaten to within an inch of his life, but no penalty for the owner so long as the slave lasted a day or two.
Give ALL the facts and don't present half as the whole picture.
Don't confuse what the Bible records as history as the notion that God is saying it is moral. The Scripture records many things that were sinful and are still sinful today, but God's morality hasn't changed. Just because God doesn't give us a 'thou shall not' doesn't mean that he condones it as moral behavior.
God does not change. Society does.
This argument is incomplete. Based on what you are saying, you are more or less left with 3 lines of thinking:
1) the Bible in true no matter what, thus slavery should be legal
2) God does not have to explicitly state what is sin and what is not for it to be immoral but this means he does not consider slavery inhumane enough to be considered a sin, which I would say is immoral, as would most people
3) The Bible, as it was written, is not necessarily exclusively the view of God. That means that when the Bible condoned slavery, it was man who decided that not God, this however makes it impossible to distinguish what is actually immoral and what is moral as determined by God, because we are at the mercy of what the writers wrote. Perhaps those who wrote the Bible ignored all of God's teachings and just wrote what would allow them to treat women as property and own slaves so they wouldn't have to work?
Regardless, your argument is either very weak or very silly.
Don't confuse what the Bible records as history as the notion that God is saying it is moral. The Scripture records many things that were sinful and are still sinful today, but God's morality hasn't changed. Just because God doesn't give us a 'thou shall not' doesn't mean that he condones it as moral behavior.
God does not change. Society does.
Actually, I agree about God not changing and the principles being the same, but the point to be made here is that men's perceptions and applications of those principles change, Now it is not just a matter of God not having said "thou shalt not" in a particular situation (or more accurately that He was not attributed with having said that) it is also a matter of whether it was actually God who said "thou shalt not" in some situations, or even if it was that it shouild be applied to all situations within a certain activity sphere or just the ones specifically addressed.
SO
What we do is come back to the principle of concern for the well-being of EVERYone in a particular situation and finding out what factors need to be addressed, recognizing that social prejudices have no place in that investigation.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,925,051 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by StainedGlassWarrior
God does not support or condone slavery as it existed in the 17th century in the US. The above verse has proved such, as kidnapping Africans was immoral and punishable by death according to the Scripture. When the Scripture refers to 'buying' or 'property' it is referring to people who had given themselves into slavery due to bankruptcy or homelessness, not taken against their will. It also speaks of prisoners of war, which are paying off a debt for their crimes.
These are all circumstances that were regulated but never condoned or approved by God. Over and over, God, through His word seeks to affect the inside of a person. Your physical earthly situation was secondary to your spiritual situation.
You've really swallowed that nonsense that people only gave themselves into slavery, haven't you. That ONLY applies to Jews, it does not apply to other slaves they had. Even your Jesus gave instructions on how to beat your slaves.
Nice try at revisionism, but then, we have learned to expect that from fundamentalists. Is that being truthful?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
