Why does the Bible permit slavery? (Biblical, Christian, believers, verse)
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.
My friend, it is important when reading the Bible to always try and understand the historical context in which the words were written.
Exodus is from the Greek and means "departure".
The book of Exodus deals with the departure of the chosen people, the Israelites, from their oppression and oppressors in Egypt.
It also lists the rules, laws and customs of the day and time in which the people lived. It is a fact that slavery was an integral part of those times.
But the Bible does not endorse or promote slavery and it is simplistic to read it that way.
Instead, what the Bible teaches are concepts that had they been put into practice would have made all men realize how wrong slavery really is.
The writer of 21:7-8 wasn't saying that slavery is what God wanted or ordered, he was reporting that that is the way the people lived, and these were the rules they'd come up with on their own to live by.
Slavery is not of God.
RESPONSE:
>>But the Bible does not endorse or promote slavery and it is simplistic to read it that way.<<
Really? You could have fooled me!
Lev 25: 1,44-46 The Lord spoke to Moses on Mount Sinai, saying....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. 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.You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property.
First, one should have at least a minimal understanding of what 'slavery' meant in those days. (Hint: it wasn't the same thing as what went on in the South before the Civil War).
If you had such an understanding, you wouldn't have started this thread.
RESPONSE:
Yes it was.
Lev 25: 1,44-46 The Lord spoke to Moses on Mount Sinai, saying....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. 45You 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. 46You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property.
In the New Testament, slave-traders are listed among those who are “ungodly and sinful” and are in the same category as those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers, adulterers and perverts, and liars and perjurers (1 Timothy 1:8-10).
Note:
Slave traders, not slave ownership.
Lev 25: 1,44-46 The Lord spoke to Moses on Mount Sinai, saying....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. 45You 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. 46You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property.
And I've answered the OP's questions. He allowed it because it was a cultural thing that was already being done, but then he put restrictions on it and regulated the treatment of slaves. Also, taking people as slaves could be seen as more merciful than killing them.
I'd be curious to see by what standard anyone would question the morality of such a practice? What tells us that such an activity is wrong?
The point here is either God explicitly gave a set of laws that legitimized immoral behavior (slavery) or slavery is, in fact, morally acceptable. Just saying that it is less wrong than contemporary societies doesn't make it right. Also saying that slavery is less wrong than murder is strawman. Even if that were the case, it wouldn't make it right. The correct answer is don't commit genocide and don't enslave people, instead of trying to pick the lesser of the two evils.
So it looks to me like we are left with one of the following options:
Slavery is wrong, and an unchanging God who is the very definition of right and wrong deliberately chose to endorse a moral evil. This makes God at best a hypocrite, at worst it means that he cannot be relied on as the definition of morality.
Slavery is, or in some form can be, morally correct. According to the Bible this would include permanent and hereditary slavery for non Jews, the selling of human beings, and the general right of owners to beat and rape slaves, subject to a few conditions. This in what God laid out in the law, and thus would appear to be the form of divinely sanctioned slavery.
The Bible is wrong when it says that God gave these laws to Moses. If this is the case, why should it be trusted as a source of any moral authority?
God changes the definitions of right and wrong over time and based on who the human actors happen to be. This makes God into little more than an arbitrary tyrant who at any time can change the definitions of right and wrong.
If you believe that God is eternal, his character is unchanging, he is unquestionably good, and the Bible is the inerrant, inspired Word of God, then logically you are left with number 2. It is a logically valid position to take, but one that I personally cannot agree with.
As an Atheist, I tend to place an extremely high value on individual human liberty, since I believe there is no greater power than the individual human mind and conscience to order one's life. This is why, to me, the involuntary subjugation of another's very personhood is unacceptable.
Unfortunately this happens a lot, those with no true understanding of what the Bible is, speaking about it like they do.
I liken this to a child trying to read and make sense of a play by Shakespeare when they have no concept what Old English is.
Or perhaps a high school drop out trying to perform brain surgery.
Simply put, in situations like that the person lacks the proper education and tools to do a very good job.
Without speaking the language of the the thing you are trying to interpret or comment on, you won't have much success and will just sound foolish.
RESPONSE:
Or like some preacher trying to tell you that the plain words in the Bible mean something entirely different than what they plainly say.
Lev 25: The Lord spoke to Moses on Mount Sinai, saying..and they (slaves) may be your property. 46You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property.
To pretend that the Bible didn't approve slavery, some translaters change the word "slave" to "servant."
Example:
As a servant earnestly desireth the shadow,
and as an hireling looketh for the reward of his work, (KJV)
(Job 7:2)
A more accurate translation would be:
Like a slave who longs for the shadow, and like labourers who look for their wages,Job 7:2 (NRSV)
>>The lot of the slave was the lot of the hireling, the lot of the laborer, etc. One would hire oneself out to earn money or food. (Lev 25:39-41) - it wasn't always slavery as we think of it today.<<
Tell me, are the children of "hirelings" automatically slaves too? Can a hireling be inherited as property?
Slave ownership was directed by God in Lev 25:44-46
Last edited by ancient warrior; 11-17-2011 at 04:54 PM..
Reason: addition
The point here is either God explicitly gave a set of laws that legitimized immoral behavior (slavery) or slavery is, in fact, morally acceptable.
Taking a prisoner of war is immoral? Is that it? Would it have been better to just kill them?
Is it wrong to require better treatment of them than those in neighboring nations?
Quote:
Just saying that it is less wrong than contemporary societies doesn't make it right. Also saying that slavery is less wrong than murder is strawman. Even if that were the case, it wouldn't make it right. The correct answer is don't commit genocide and don't enslave people, instead of trying to pick the lesser of the two evils.
Do you believe that there is anything that is absolutely right or wrong? What is that based on?
Quote:
So it looks to me like we are left with one of the following options:
Slavery is wrong, and an unchanging God who is the very definition of right and wrong deliberately chose to endorse a moral evil. This makes God at best a hypocrite, at worst it means that he cannot be relied on as the definition of morality.
He decided to allow it. It's not wrong if he makes that decision.
Quote:
Slavery is, or in some form can be, morally correct. According to the Bible this would include permanent and hereditary slavery for non Jews, the selling of human beings, and the general right of owners to beat and rape slaves, subject to a few conditions. This in what God laid out in the law, and thus would appear to be the form of divinely sanctioned slavery.
Since we are no longer under the Mosaic Law, this is not an option.
Quote:
The Bible is wrong when it says that God gave these laws to Moses. If this is the case, why should it be trusted as a source of any moral authority?
Not an issue. God's commands are good.
Quote:
God changes the definitions of right and wrong over time and based on who the human actors happen to be. This makes God into little more than an arbitrary tyrant who at any time can change the definitions of right and wrong.
God allowed it under the Mosaic Law for a time.
Quote:
Quote:
If you believe that God is eternal, his character is unchanging, he is unquestionably good, and the Bible is the inerrant, inspired Word of God, then logically you are left with number 2. It is a logically valid position to take, but one that I personally cannot agree with.
As I stated above, we are no longer under the Mosaic Law, so this is not an issue.
Quote:
As an Atheist, I tend to place an extremely high value on individual human liberty, since I believe there is no greater power than the individual human mind and conscience to order one's life. This is why, to me, the involuntary subjugation of another's very personhood is unacceptable.
NoCapo
Moderator cut: delete
Last edited by Miss Blue; 11-17-2011 at 08:34 PM..
Reason: offtopic/rude and personal
First, one should have at least a minimal understanding of what 'slavery' meant in those days. (Hint: it wasn't the same thing as what went on in the South before the Civil War).
If you had such an understanding, you wouldn't have started this thread.
How interesting!
Please enlighten us ... what did slavery mean in the ancient world? How was it different than the slavery that existed in the pre-Civil War South?
Taking a prisoner of war is immoral? Is that it? Would it have been better to just kill them?
Is it wrong to require better treatment of them than those in neighboring nations?
Do you believe that there is anything that is absolutely right or wrong? What is that based on?
He decided to allow it. It's not wrong if he makes that decision.
Since we are no longer under the Mosaic Law, this is not an option.
Not an issue. God's commands are good.
God allowed it under the Mosaic Law for a time.
As I stated above, we are no longer under the Mosaic Law, so this is not an issue.
As an atheist you have no objective standard of morality, so really, your opinion is pretty much irrelevant. You have no right to say that I am wrong, God is wrong, or anyone is wrong.
For some odd reason, you seem VERY familiar.
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.
