Amaleq13

I don't see how establishing "exact" similarity is relevant.

IMO, they are sufficiently similar in that they both advocate the idea of owning another human so that both may be rejected as immoral.

Angrillori

Uhmm, except you're wrong.

In order to prove "all ravens are black" untrue, you only need to show one white raven.

To disprove "children need to be beaten near unto death in order to grow up productively," one need only show one child who grew up productively who wasn't beaten near unto death.

Other than that, even the statement "some children need to be beaten near unto death in order to grow up productively" would need to have some evidence to support it. Unless one can show that "beating near unto death" was the only way possible, and that, lacking it, the child would have grown into a criminal, the statement that the child "needed" it would be unsupported.

The fact that some beaten children grow up to be successful does NOT support the statement "children need beatings" or even "this child needed beatings."

However, the fact that some children grow up successfully without beatings DOES falsify the statement "children need beatings to grow up successfully."

It's not a strawman, it's use of a truth table and deductive logic.

Angrillori

Hmm, let's make a chart:

American pre-civil war slavery God's slavery
Status of Slave: Property Property
Treatment of Slave: Abuse allowed Abuse allowed
Ability to request freedom: Nope Nope
Bought and sold: Yup Yup
Source of slaves: Involuntary Capture Involuntary Capture
and heredity. and heredity.


Hmmm....

Not_Registered

Amaleq13, thank you for your reply to the question. Could you please also offer your reasons as to why you think they are not exactly the same, if you believe so.

Let me clarify. I asked the question I asked not to get people to admit the bible's slavery is moral. Yes, this is what I believe, but the question I ask is just to find out if people think it is different at all from America's recent past slavery; and if so, then how. I just want to know for myself because I'm curious. Saying yes, they are different, by no means implies that the bible's slavery is moral. If someone asks if I think Hussein and Hitler are the exact same, saying Hussein isn't the same as Hitler, and listing reasons why, doesn't mean I think he is moral and right in what he does at all.

Not_Registered

So, Angrillori, do you believe them to be exactly the same. If so that is fine. I would just like a clear answer. Also, if not then in what small aspects do they differ?

Angrillori

In every important aspect they are the same.

Clearly they aren't identical, in that one was Americans acting on people from the African Continent, or earlier, Europeans acting on Native Americans and Islanders, The other was Hebrews acting on Midianites/Amelekites/Canaanites/whatever.

But, in every aspect that is important:

Were humans treated as property?
Were they bought and sold?
Were they abused?
Was the practice institutionalized in society?
Were humans captured and bound against their will and pressed to serve others?

The two correspond.

Not_Registered

For all, let me add an additional query to my original question. Do you believe the slavery defined in the bible condoned racism? If so, please provide some scripture to reinforce your stance. If not, could you please state why.

Angrillori

So, do you mean, did the bible establish a double standard between who could be enslaved and who couldn't? Whether the bible taught that there was one group of people who could be slaves, and one group who couldn't?

Slavery based on ethnicity?

Hmm, let's see:

Gen 9:25-27
25"Cursed be Canaan!
The lowest of slaves
will he be to his brothers."
26 He also said,
"Blessed be the LORD , the God of Shem!
May Canaan be the slave of Shem. [2]
27 May God extend the territory of Japheth [3] ;
may Japheth live in the tents of Shem,
and may Canaan be his [4] slave."

And, later on:

Lev 25:39-46
39 " 'If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you, do not make him work as a slave. 40 He is to be treated as a hired worker or a temporary resident among you; he is to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. 41 Then he and his children are to be released, and he will go back to his own clan and to the property of his forefathers. 42 Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. 43 Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God.
44 " 'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You 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. 46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

And then, tellingly:
Chr 8:7-10
7 All the people left from the Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites (these peoples were not Israelites), 8 that is, their descendants remaining in the land, whom the Israelites had not destroyed-these Solomon conscripted for his slave labor force, as it is to this day. 9 But Solomon did not make slaves of the Israelites for his work; they were his fighting men, commanders of his captains, and commanders of his chariots and charioteers. 10 They were also King Solomon's chief officials-two hundred and fifty officials supervising the men.

So, you tell me.

Angrillori

Of course, you're avoiding the issue.

Slavery is wrong. Beating slaves to near death is worse.

The bible says: have slaves. Beat them near unto death. If your ox gores another man's slave, pay that man for his loss, then stone your ox.

Whether it is racially, nationality, or just "hey I found these dudes in the woods, lets enslave 'em" slavery is wrong.

So whether or not the bible's racism is racially motivated, it remains, at root, slavery. Which is wrong. Almost as wrong as a moral system which says it's ok to have slaves, and even beat them near unto death, as long as they can regain their feet in a couple of days.

Not_Registered

Thank you for you reply Angrillori, but I must restate:
If you could supply a yes or no answer to whether the two instances of slavery (the one defined in the bible and the one implemented in early America) are exactly the same I would greatly appreciate it. I would like something more clear than "The two corresond." That can be interpreted many ways. If perceived a certain way, even I can agree with that statement. If you choose to continue to circumvent or not answer the question, your decision will be respected. But, if you would like to make it clear for me, could you please provide a yes or no answer to the question I have posed. Thanks.