Stephen T-B

“I belevie it is morally acceptable to allow people to sell themselves into a bond servant relationship, if they choose.” (sschlichter)

So you would have no objection if your neighbour accepted the offer of the Haitian family which came knocking on his door to be his “bond servants” in return for food and shelter - meaning he could order them to do anything he wanted them to, and beat them when they failed to carry out his orders to his satisfaction?
I see.

“I beleive it is immoral to collect slaves from conquest or kidnapping” (sschlichter) so in regard to Leviticus 25:44-45 (NIV)
"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.” does this enslaving of foreigners fall within your parameters of what constitutes moral behaviour?
Do we need to ask why and how “male and female” slaves would end up in Judea? Does the author of Leviticus state that they must neither have been taken as spoils of war nor kidnapped?
That same verse concludes: “you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly." No mention there of not treating foreign slaves ruthlessly. Why not? Is that because the Jewish god didn’t much like non-Jews and didn’t much care what happened to them?

“I beleive slavery was an option for the destitute that was better than starving to death”. And so, apparently, did the Jewish God; it also believed slavery was a better option than those with means simply employing those without means and paying them a fair wage for their labour.

“ I beleive it is morally acceptable to punish.” I have noticed this among certain sorts of Christians - a belief in the therapeutic benefits of a good beating. No doubt the slave of an Isrealite benefited from a good beating if he had tried to murder his master’s children, or had raped his wife, or stolen his money, or burnt down his house or killed his cattle.
And he would no doubt have benefited similarly if he was beaten for spilling some wine, burning the bread, tripping over and breaking a vessel, failing to prevent the goats leaping a wall and escaping.

“If the punishment is excessive then it is immoral.” (sschlichter) ah - beg pardon - so in the case of an Israelite beating his slave for spilling the wine, it was OK provided the slave could get up three days later?
Not OK? Why not? Where do the Scriptures stipulate the appropriate punishments for particular offences?

“I understand that the thought of someone getting beaten (yet unharmed) is harsh to our modern senses, but the alternatives were worse. If someone does not work, they would not eat and they would starve to death.” (sschlichter).
If someone offers himself to become a slave in order to survive, presumably he is able to work.
If he is able to work, why did the Jewish god not ordain that rather than take him in as slave, the man with means should employ him and pay him a fair wage for his work?

“I have asked 6 times to be supplied a passage that shows that the slavery that is condoned is in anyway similar to slavery in th 1700 Americans capturing and kidnapping Africans. That is immoral and is outlawed in the OT.” (sschlichter)
Where?

sschlichter

Who said you could do anything you wanted to? Why do you have the sickest intent?

Does it say to treat foregin slaves ruthlessly? No.

These are being bought, not captured and kidnapped. Yes, it states that you cannot kidnap people as slaves. it also is quite clear that foreigners live among them that do not have to sell themsleves into slavery and even Hebrews who were destitute would sell themselves to foreigners. The command is given multiple times not to oppress them.

Not true, the Jewish God gave the command not to oppress foreigners and not to kidnap people as slaves. All the kidnapping and beatings are being projected by you, not the text. The text specifically states that "If you beat a servant to harm, you will be punished". It never says "make sure you beat a servant" - this is from you.

for example, it says

(Exo 22:16)
"If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged and has sexual relations with her, he must surely endow her to be his wife."

This is likewise, not a command to seduce virgins. It is only a law pertaining to the consequences. you can make up all sorts of extremes and evil machinations and ways that a would-be seducer of virgins could seduce the same person twice and get around the law because she is no longer a virgin.

Are you under the impression that servants could not be paid? Are you under the impression that slaves could not own money or even other slaves? You are projecting again. Why don't you tell me what the fair wage was? Is it possible that the economic conditions made a fair wage to be given food, board, and being taken care of? If not, tell me why you know the economy could have supported more than that. Perhaps the bond servant union should have encouraged higher wages. Read about a famine in the OT and tell me that becoming someones servant who would guarantee food for you and your family was not appealing in any sense. You are incapable of stepping out of your own experiences when reading these things.

and still projecting. Perhaps these are the reasons you would beat someone but a person trying to scrape a living out of the ground would have a big incentive to keep his servants happy and productive and advice to that effect can be found in the law. for example, the law not to return a slave that runs away is a counter balance to the abuses that might exist.

Any evil master images are coming from you, not the text. I am sure people were evil then just like they are now but that is not what is condoned in the text. Only presented by you.

(Exo 21:6) then his master must bring him to the judges, and he will bring him to the door or the doorposts, and his master will pierce his ear with an awl, and he shall serve him forever.

(Exo 22:8) If the thief is not caught, then the owner of the house will be brought before the judges to see whether he has laid his hand on his neighbor's goods.

Are you under the impression that these laws were implemented without any reasonable judgment. that is why you present examples of a slave tripping and is legally beaten to death as if there was no sense applied to the laws.

Here, you would like this then. Here is a law from Little Rock Arkansas. As long as you make no effort to understand the culture and the reason behind the law and apply the worst possible exception then you make the people of Little Rock appear like imbeciles too. You really should make some attempt to understand some of these things.

• Little Rock: Dogs may not bark after 6 PM.; Flirtation between men and women on the streets of Little Rock may result in a 30-day jail term; It is unlawful to walk one's cow down Main Street after 1:00 PM on Sunday; No person shall sound the horn on a vehicle at any place where cold drinks or sandwiches are served after 9:00 P.M. -Little Rock City Code Sec. 18-54

Interpretting any law takes a little effort. If you bring assumptions to it and do not bother to understand why the law was there, you will end up saying ignorant things.

Stephen T-B

For all these protests, the stark fact remains that the god of the Jews condoned the enslavement of one human being by another; if this enslavement were indeeed benign in Bronze Age Judea - and to suppose it was (in an age when barbaric cruelties were the cultural norm), is somewhat naive, I think - the Jewish god still stands accused of having differentiated between what it ragarded as acceptable treatments for Jewish and non-Jewish slaves; and it stands accused of failing to forbid a practice whch it knew that its devotees in centuries to come would turn into the most cruel, vile and widespread form of abuse in human history.

It forbade the eating of shellfish and pork; it stipulated the most exact procedures to be taken by a woman to cleanse herself after menstruation, and how and when burnt sacrifices were to be offered to it, but it permitted slavery.

Personally I have no problem with this, since it is clear to me that the Jewish God was a projection of the Bronze-Age Jewish elite; of course it didn't say anything useful to later ages about slavery. How could it have done?
Indeed, that is something it could only have done if it were indeed the god which modern-day Jews and Christians (and should I add Muslims?) believe it to be.

sschlichter

When you sit in judgment (as you obviously do) then you must have some rule you are using to judge. Maybe if you submit to a couple of questions, I could figure out what rule it is that you are using to judge something immoral.

I joined the army many years ago and signed an agreement that gave over many rights to the government. On their part, I was guaranteed room and board and medical care as needed. I was 'forced' to be trained and was punished (sometimes physically, sometimes verbally) when I screwed up. Was this slavery? If not, I joined for 3 years, how many years would it take for it to be slavery?

Stephen T-B

"On their part, I was guaranteed room and board and medical care as needed." (sschlichter)

You missed out a couple of things, didn't you?
Or did the Army not pay you?
And did it not provide you with a pension?
Did it not grant you leave from time to time?

Could it have sold you to another master - the owner of a coal mine, say, who then sent you down his pit - without paying you? Or to a trawler skipper who sent you to sea for weeks at a time in Arctic waters - without paying you?
If you married, did it own your children, selling them to whomsoever it chose to?

But here's my substantive point, and so far none of the appologists in this thread for the Biblical god has addressed it:
"...the Jewish god...stands accused of having differentiated between what it ragarded as acceptable treatments for Jewish and non-Jewish slaves; and it stands accused of failing to forbid a practice whch it knew that its devotees in centuries to come would turn into the most cruel, vile and widespread form of abuse in human history."

arnoldo

Perhaps if slavery was not mentioned in the OT someone would invariably argue how such an institution that was widespread thousands of years ago would have failed to have been addressed :huh: Anyway, since divorce is also mentioned in the Mosaic law is "the Jewish god" also to blame for the widespread divorce rates happening today as well?

sschlichter

So, signing over your life is not immoral depending on the price?

What was the economic value of having someone work on a farm 3000 years ago?

If there was more money or a bond servant pension program involved then you would not consider it immoral?

Why do you assume a slave did not get an appropriate break. Are you unable to grasp a society that does not have government mandated vacation days?

coal mines? trawler skipper? When do you think the law was written?

sschlichter

Divorce is a great example of the treatment of a law that was given, not out of consent for the practice but to protect those against the effects of disobedience.

The most ridiculous notion is that the devotees of the Jewish God were to blame for the practice of slavery over the centuries.

~Steve

DaMan121

Yes it is. Morality is dependent on culture and time = moral relativism.

There you go again. What does time have to do with absolute morality?

Edit: Also, for the sake of argument, if the laws do require constant updating, then why haven't we received another update? I mean its been 2000 years, and society has evolved a lot more than OT to NT, vs NT to now. I really want to know what god thinks about downloading mp3s.

Edit2: I could be wrong, but the concept of employee/employer existed during this period right? There was a distinction between being a slave and an actual worker right?

Sheshbazzar

To be a slave owner was a choice, think about it.
A Hebrew man has a sum of money, and finds he needs help with the harvesting, he has several choices;

A.He can seek out an employee and offer him a daily wage. (Lev.19:13)

B.He can negotiate a longer term of employment with payment accruing to be paid at arranged regular intervals, or at the end of the employment. (Gen 29:15-)
Jacob retained an employer/employee relationship with Laban his father-in-law, not a "master" and "slave" relationship, and Jacob not being a slave, packed up and left when HE was ready, whether Laban liked it or not

C.He can offer a bondman or bondmaid a contract, one which they enter by free choice, (or by family choice) and is of a specified payment and duration, they are servant/slaves for the duration of the contract, but not to be oppressed or mistreated, and at the completion of the term; They are fully released and free
However for a -Hebrew- bondservant, there was a further stipulation;

"If any of your Israelite relatives go bankrupt and sell themselves to you, DO NOT TREAT THEM AS SLAVES.
Treat them instead as hired servants or as resident foreigners who live with you, and they will serve you only until the Year of Jubilee.
(Lev25:30-40)
(They could also redeem themselves or be redeemed.- Lev 25:48-49)

"Do NOT TREAT THEM AS SLAVES" though they were sold into service they were not to be treated as "SLAVES" (because actual "slaves" could be, and were subject to harsh treatment, the kind of harsh treatment that -would- considered mistreatment if it was applied to anyone but a lowly "slave" ie. a purchased foreigner at the absolute bottom of the social pecking order, one who could be beaten at will.

D. Or the Hebrew man could go to the slave market and -buy- a foreign SLAVE, this slave would be in exchange for his money or for a trade item and would be "his" slave, "his-money" (Ex21:21) a fully owned "possession" to do with what he would, just as he owned his cow, or his coat, or his sandals. He was not required to -ever- pay them anything at all above the provision of food and minimal shelter. (animal treatment)
This slave was entitled to NO contract, if he had a wife, or children were born to them, they all automatically became the slaves of the slaveowner, to be sold, traded or left as an inheritance to their masters Hebrew children or relatives.
They could be held in slavery for their entire lives; though being his wholly owned "possessions" an owner might -permit- them to buy their freedom,-IF- he chose to do so,
or he -could- grant them freedom, -IF- he chose to do so.
Their lives and living conditions were completely at the discretion and mercy of their master.
His only limitation being that he was not beat them beyond that point where they could not get up within two days,
if he exceeded this he could receive punishment by the authorities.

If he killed a HEBREW bondservant/slave he would receive the death penalty.
If he killed a (owned) slave he would only be punished. (fined and/or stripes, as the judges decreed)

His money his choice, each of which had its pluses and minuses.
Hi Ho, Hi Ho, Off to the slave-market I go !