Slavery in the Bible

--

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery#Abolitionist_movements

And that was when? 530BC ish.

Cyrus is regarded as a monotheist. (And a Messiah, apparently, but you'd probably know more about that than I would). But he was also respectful to many gods:
http://www.cyrusgreat.com/content/view/16/2

Hmmm. Touché, as they say. Yes, Cyrus is very highly regarded by Jews, for ending the Babylonian Captivity and returning the Jews to their land and all. I confess I did not know he outlawed slavery, though. It apparently didn't catch on. The next country to abolish slavery was Hungary around 1000 CE, then Japan in 1588.
 
--

I disagree that 21:12 applies to slaves. It clearly states "He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death." Says nothing about a servant.

As I said, since that verse immediately follows one concerning slaves, it was ruled that it applied to slaves, too. But I have to concede that it is not explicit. More on this later.

You are correct, I believe, in stating that 21:20 (assume that's what you meant, since 23:20 is in no way related to the topic of discussion) deals with slaves! Let's look at it!

21:20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Doesn't say how, and doesn't say it's murder, but there is an "eye for an eye... reference later that could be said to apply. But what you neglected to mention is 21:21! Strange how that works. Let's look at 21:21 shall we?

21:21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

What's that? If the slave lives a day or two after the beating, and then dies, it's all cool, because after all it is just the mans money. Kinda goes against the general theme of your claims doesn't it?

According to my marginal notes, it was assumed that an immediate death was intentional murder and a lingering death was not. Still, you're right. Not much benefit there for the beaten slave, nor much punishment for the brutal master.

By the way, I'm using a Jewish Bible. I had no idea the numbering was so different, but it apparently is.

26 And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake.

27 And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake.

I added 21:27 because it goes so well with 21:26 :) What they actually say is that if a man causes his servant (man or maid) to go blind in one eye, or loose a tooth, they are to be let go. Not quite as general as implied. The slave has to be injured by it's owner, and apparently only the loss of an eye or a tooth is covered. But, in a broad sense, you are correct.

In practice, this was extended to any serious injury.

Well, you really have to go back to 21:7 to get the full meaning here. Let's look :)

The passage you comment on here is not at all the passage I intended to refer you to. The one I had in mind dealt explicitly with a woman taken in warfare, and the restrictions placed on the man who wishes to make her his wife. It should be a few pages away.

I apologize. I didn't just finding the quotes was going to be a problem.

14 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou.

Got to agree with you on this one!

To this day, Jews are forbidden to have anyone do work for them on the Sabbath. A Jewish school where I formerly worked added a new wing, but no construction was permitted on Saturday, even though none of the workers was Jewish.

15 Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee:

16 He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him.

I read this to apply to slaves from other tribes or areas, entering into a Jewish, or Israelite camp/area. I'd have to read more than I want right now, to firm up an opinion on this, so I'm gonna give you a conditional agreement here :)

No, it meant any slave. Jews pretty much had to treat their slaves well, because if they decided to boogie there was nothing they could do about it.

OK, where do we stand?

I've shown that the bible clearly states that slaves are merely a commodity (Duet. 21:21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.)

I won't accuse you of using standard fundy methods to support an agenda. I'll take you at your word, and assume you truly believe what you said. Unfortunately you made the same mistake fundies accuse us atheist of. You picked and chose your supporting verses, and ignored the others. When taken in context, I believe that for the most part, the bible does little more than put a minimum of restrictions on what can be done to a slave. Does the bible require that slaves be treated better than other cultures of the time? With exceptions (one noted by another poster above) yes. Is it really a big enough difference to support your claims? I think not.

Well, we can disagree there. I think the prohibition against returning escaped slaves to their masters alone is enough to make my point, since Hammurabi mandated that they be returned under penalty of death; but I'll concede that my case from the OT isn't as strong as I thought it was.

By way of lame excuse, I'll say that I think I was speaking more from the viewpoint of Jewish teaching and tradition than from the text of the Bible. But it was the Bible we were talking about, so that's out of court by my own standards.

Interesting discussion anyway, even though I did get large parts of my butt handed to me. Good thing I'm a fat guy.

Thanks for the conversation.

For the record, I think I probably hate fundies' misuse and distortion of the OT more than you do. As I keep saying, it's OUR book...
 
--

I have to say, I found your response to be hostile and distorting.

My apologies. It was intended as a joke. I knew that the implications of "most Jews" were unintentional, of course. I have had trivial misstatements of my own seized upon in that manner, an thought I'd allude to that. I sincerely intended no offense.

Millions of people say and imply that the Bible is an inerrant source of morality. You're wondering why we non-believers are so bent on saying it isn't, and as you offer your own point of view, which appears to be quite reasonable. That doesn't negate the reality other's points of view, though.

Yeah, I understand that. It's just that it's hard to have an intelligent conversation about these things when people keep talking past me to somebody else.

I certainly understand why it happens, though. I've run into quite a few Christians who are really worried about my going to Hell--and when they find out I'm a former Christian, they're sure of it.

I disagree. The Ten Commandments are a highly inadequate standard of morality and most people who refer to them distort them to fit modern standards. For example, "You shall not commit adultery" originally meant "you will not sleep with other men's wives" but did not prohibit polygamy or visiting prostitutes. "You will not bear false witness against your neighbor" originally meant that you would not swear falsely in court about other Jews, but is not taken to mean a much more general statement about honesty and integrity. And of course very few people take the ritual commandments seriously at all anymore, and if they do they put a highly symbolic interpretation on them.

Everything you say is true, but I never said that their doing so was wise or proper. I did say, "Often incorrectly or in an illegitimate way, I will grant you; but you are saying that no one refers back to the Bible for moral guidance at all."

I see your point, but I'll have to stand by mine; people DO refer to the Bible as a moral guide today.

Not all of them are even nuts.

I have no problem acknowledging your point of view.

I appreciate that and I thank you.

As I said, though, I find it very frustrating when people insist on responding to a fundamentalist point of view even when they understand that I don't have one.

Ah, but you are missing a key point. Lots of people are demanding that everyone become a Baptist. This is an opinionated place, where majority is in the minority everywhere else.

Perhaps a metaphor, which is a bit extreme, might help. Your country is at war with some other country. You walk into enemy territory and declare "We're not all so bad! We have some good points! You are missing some very fundamental good things about us!"

Although you are completely correct, you are still asking for trouble. That's all I'm saying.

I see your point.

Here is mine:

I don't speak on behalf of religion in general, and I'm tired of people assuming that I do. I am a former Christian and a Jew, and you can take this to the bank: I'm more disgusted and outraged by fundamentalism than you could ever be.

The common ground between my beliefs and theirs begins and ends with the word "God." Understand: the word only.

The God that Fred Phelps worships is no God that I recognize, and the Bible that he reads from is not, in a very real sense, the same book that I read. For one thing, it has a whole new Testament added onto it; for another, he thinks the part we do share is all about this Jesus guy. Sorry, but he's just not in there.

Besides "prophecies" of Jesus, fundamentalists see things in the Jewish Bible that were never there-- like "creationism", details of the "last days" (which always seem to be upon us!) and in an earlier time, segregation and white supremacy (some see those still).

And yes, we Jews do get to say they are wrong, because it's our damn Book!

Religion causes oppression, brutality, discrimination, and religious wars? Damn right it does! And who's usually first in line to catch all of that crap, throughout Western history?

Religion leads to ignorance, contempt for real science, and superstition? Right again! But mine doesn't! Check the phone book for any medical or scientific specialty you can name, and you'll find page after page of Jewish names! Check the list of Nobel Prize winners in the sciences, and you'll find the same! My people think all learning is sacred, and always have!

I swear to God (and remember, for me that's not just an expression), I wish I could find another word than religion to hang on Judaism. Other than that one word, "God," which is like a red flag to a bull around here, it's hard to find a single thing that you atheists are mad about that we Jews have anything to do with.

In everything but that one, single word, we're on the same side here. I just wish it wasn't quite so much like pulling teeth on every thread to get one or two people to understand that.
 
Last edited:
--

(I think I'm about done here, but for courtesy's sake and to say "thanks," one more post, at least. I got my rant off my chest in my last.)

We do not use Aristotle today as a scientific authority! All ancient documents are to be discarded in those areas where they do no longer apply. The bible is historically and literary interesting, but that is all.

What about a community that still finds it useful as a framework against which to work out beliefs and ethics in the present day? That's just for Jews, of course, but then we never told anybody else to take our book and run off into dogmaland with it...

Me personally I am rather neutral about what I think and feel about the bible in itself. I find it interesting in many ways. I don’t think it is “good” or “evil” in itself, no books are, they are objects! I think though that it is completely useless for the purposes that many religious people think it is good for.

Well, I have to say that I think the Jewish approach works, but there's no room to go into that here. You'll find plenty about it in some of my other posts, and some seem to find it tolerable. Suffice it to say that our highest authority is human reason as expressed by the consensus of the community; that's more authoritative than the Torah itself.

Or God, for that matter.

I apologize if I misunderstood you here, but that really is how it read to me.

May that be our biggest communication problem.

How is it falsifying biblical values?

By the implication that the Bible doesn't see slavery as a problem.

I do not think that you have managed to show that it is such a poor argument. Even so, you were not really addressing if it is a useful argument (for its purpose) or not in your OP, but you went out (in your OP) to prove that it is wrong in the first place, as you were saying that the bible’s view of slavery isn’t as severe as the criticism of the bible says it is. I’m saying that this criticism isn’t addressing the severity at all, since it doesn’t matter for the use of the criticism/argument.

After my conversation with "this guy" (problematic screenname, that), I think I'll have to concede that you're right. My case isn't as strong as I thought it was with my OP.

Whatever else may be true, I have thoroughly enjoyed the conversation. As usual, I end up conceding most points, but on the other hand I am learning a lot--about what I believe, what I don't, and what doesn't matter.

In spite of our differences and misunderstandings, I hope you won't mind if I think of you, and the others on this thread, as my friends.

Thank you.

As Sir Winston once said, "Just because we're at war doesn't mean we can't behave like gentlemen."

Peace.

Charles
 
Okay. How about the Code of Hammurabi? It's the most widely noted precursor to the Mosaic Code:

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM

16. If any one receive into his house a runaway male or female slave of the court, or of a freedman, and does not bring it out at the public proclamation of the major domus, the master of the house shall be put to death.

17. If any one find runaway male or female slaves in the open country and bring them to their masters, the master of the slaves shall pay him two shekels of silver.

18.*If the slave will not give the name of the master, the finder shall bring him to the palace; a further investigation must follow, and the slave shall be returned to his master.

19.*If he hold the slaves in his house, and they are caught there, he shall be put to death.

199.*If he put out the eye of a man's slave, or break the bone of a man's slave, he shall pay one-half of its value.

205.*If the slave of a freed man strike the body of a freed man, his ear shall be cut off.

As you can see, returning a slave to his master was punishable by death, and injury to a slave resulted only in compensation being given to his master.

Other ancient law codes are similar. If one prominent reference isn't enough, feel free to find another that proves me wrong.

I don't have to find other quotes as many posters have already done so. I'll cast my vote for Cyrus the Great myself.
 
As I said, since that verse immediately follows one concerning slaves, it was ruled that it applied to slaves, too. But I have to concede that it is not explicit. More on this later.

Not to beat a dead horse, but to clarify why I disagree. The preceding verses are actually dealing with the sold daughter. It appears to me that there is a change in subject at the point of verse 12.



According to my marginal notes, it was assumed that an immediate death was intentional murder and a lingering death was not. Still, you're right. Not much benefit there for the beaten slave, nor much punishment for the brutal master.

By the way, I'm using a Jewish Bible. I had no idea the numbering was so different, but it apparently is.

I wonder if the statement in the notes is based on other passages?

It's interesting that there are such differences between the "Christian" and Jewish versions. I didn't realize that either. But I've also never looked at a Jewish version.



In practice, this was extended to any serious injury.

I can believe that. And it's more the Fundies that get stuck on the fine points (when those points agree with their beliefs ;))



The passage you comment on here is not at all the passage I intended to refer you to. The one I had in mind dealt explicitly with a woman taken in warfare, and the restrictions placed on the man who wishes to make her his wife. It should be a few pages away.

I apologize. I didn't just finding the quotes was going to be a problem.

The mistake is mine. I was still looking at Exodus. I screwed up big time on that. I apologize! (I may have to make similar statements as I go through the rest of this :o)

Deut. 21:10-14 does in fact discuss captured women. The only comment I'll make there is that while it does prescribe a period of morning for the woman, for her father and mother, of a month, it only delays the rape. It doesn't prevent it.


To this day, Jews are forbidden to have anyone do work for them on the Sabbath. A Jewish school where I formerly worked added a new wing, but no construction was permitted on Saturday, even though none of the workers was Jewish.

While not infinitely familiar with all the Jewish Sabbath prohibitions, I do know that there are many.



No, it meant any slave. Jews pretty much had to treat their slaves well, because if they decided to boogie there was nothing they could do about it.

My take on this is based on the preceding versus. This chapter appears, to me, to be discussing the Israelite's (I assume) dealings with other peoples. It discusses Ammonites and Moabites, Egyptions, and other classes of people. The verses in question say -

15 Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee:

16 He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him.

To me it just reads like it's discussing a slave from another tribe or country. I won't argue the point though, because I can't :)


Well, we can disagree there. I think the prohibition against returning escaped slaves to their masters alone is enough to make my point, since Hammurabi mandated that they be returned under penalty of death; but I'll concede that my case from the OT isn't as strong as I thought it was.

By way of lame excuse, I'll say that I think I was speaking more from the viewpoint of Jewish teaching and tradition than from the text of the Bible. But it was the Bible we were talking about, so that's out of court by my own standards.

Interesting discussion anyway, even though I did get large parts of my butt handed to me. Good thing I'm a fat guy.

Thanks for the conversation.

For the record, I think I probably hate fundies' misuse and distortion of the OT more than you do. As I keep saying, it's OUR book...

Well, now you've done it!

You had to be so damn polite didn't you?

Now I come off like an ass :o

It was an interesting discussion. I learned a few things, and I always consider that good.

I do tend to take any opportunity to dispute any mention of "goodness" in the bible. It, along with the other major "Holy Books" scare the hell out of me. They can be so powerful, and have the potential to drive people to such extreme ends, that any opportunity to dispel their myths tends to put a fire under me.

Anyway I did enjoy it, and I again apologize for the book mix up. My only defense is that the verse and chapter numbers were similar, and I was tired, and got confused. Not a good excuse, but the only one I have. I would not intentionally try to be deceptive, by using a different book of the bible, when the source material (the bible) is so readily available to anyone interested enough to look it up.

Thanks!
 
--

Oh, all right...

I would like to tackle just this one point. There were many parts of the "natural order of things" that the writers of the bible did contest (hence the requirement for laws). Things such as eating pork, homosexuality, usury, etc. are specifically condemned. The point of using slavery as an example is to show how the writers of the bible do seem to pick things to condemn or approve that most benefit themselves, and not justice, compassion, or any other "good" quality.

Okay, I'll give this a shot.

Before we get going, let me say this: I'm sure that most or all of this is already known to everyone here, but just in case, I'm going to go over it anyway. I'm not implying that anyone is ignorant about anything. Okay? Besides, Morry has gone to bed and I feel like writing. (Morry is the 98-year-old man that I care for 24-7. That's why I have so much free time to post.)

Hokulele, you'll find your bottom-line answer at the end of all this, and I think I can promise you that you won't like it.

Well, there's a lot here. Let's start with the kosher laws.

Any rabbi will tell you that God gave us no reasons for the dietary laws, but we are allowed to guess. This is more or less the consensus guess from the tradition.

In Judaism, blood may not be eaten. The prohibition is absolute in the Torah, and is the reason for the specifics of kosher slaughter and meat preparation.

The whole idea behind the kosher laws is to minimize the shedding of blood. The creatures that are OK to eat are all ruminants with split hooves; grass-eaters. Any creature that kills or eats meat itself is forbidden. Humans who ate them would be considered participants in that bloodshed. Pigs are omnivores; they have fangs, like dogs. Can't eat 'em. It's clearest with the birds; the forbidden birds are listed (unlike the animals) and they're all raptors--hawks, owls, like that.

(The Jewish ideal is vegetarianism, and many Jews are vegetarians. It's easier than messing with finding kosher meat.)

I don't think the kosher laws benefit anybody but the animals and the shochet (kosher slaughterer). Why the animals? The slaughter has to be painless.

Homosexuality? Beats me. Some theories are that it was associated with pagan temple prostitution, or with some practices of Israel's neighbors--it was pretty much OK with them (e.g., the Greeks)--but I don't think anyone really knows. It doesn't appear that the Bible is even aware (so to speak) of homosexuality as a lifestyle or sexual orientation, as we are today. It seems to be talking about the occasional act of homosexual anal rape, which was associated with revenge or humiliation. One clue, if you want to get into text-criticism technicalities, is that all the passages about gay sex come from the H source, which regarded any kind of sex that couldn't make babies as an "abomination."

All the branches have dropped that prohibition long since, except the Orthodox--and some of those congregations are quietly dropping it, too.

I can't imagine who that prohibition would benefit.

The usury laws have gotten us into a lot of trouble over the centuries. Jews are forbidden to lend money to other Jews at interest. That's mostly ignored now, of course--it has to be; if a Jew goes into a bank for a loan, and the loan officer happens to be Jewish, they don't suddenly drop the interest charges. There are still "Hebrew Free Loan Societies" in any town with a significant Jewish population, though, that lend money at zero interest to Jews in need--and sometimes to others; I myself borrowed $1,500 from the Dallas HFLA long before my conversion was completed (I was unemployed at the time).

Anyway, in the Middle Ages, Christians had the exact same rule; they could not lend money at interest to other Christians. Well, somebody had to do it, and since Jews had few other ways of making a living, some became moneylenders.

In medieval Europe, Jews were forbidden to own land, do they couldn't be farmers. They were barred from the guilds, so they couldn't be craftsmen either--stonemasons, carpenters, butchers, bakers, like that. What was left was cottage artisan work: tailors, cobblers, knife sharpeners, jewelers. That, and being a merchant, buying and selling--and moneylending. Jews have always been small-town and city people, since medieval times. They weren't allowed to be anything else.

Remember Tevye in Fiddler on the Roof? He had a cow, not a farm. That was shtetl life; the small villages set aside for Jews in Poland and Russia, the only places where Jews were allowed to live. That way of life is literally extinct now. There were 5 million Polish Jews before WWII. By the end of the war, only a few thousand were left.

Well, anyway, the moneylending biz didn't work out so well for us. People went into debt to the Jews in their community, and every now and then they'd decide it was a good idea to run all the Jews out of town, or, better, just kill them all, and settle their debts the easy way. If the local baron or lord (or the czar) owed them a lot of money, sometimes he'd set it up and pass out the swords or muskets or whatever. Happened pretty regularly. The word is "pogrom."

(Jews have a saying whenever the different branches, or different people, argue about some belief or practice: "When the pogroms start, it won't matter." that's one reason we've learned to both stick together and leave each other alone. The pogroms always--always--start again. We watch the Christian far right a lot more closely than any atheist.)

The image of the greedy Jew moneylender has stuck to us for centuries, mostly courtesy of Will Shakespeare's Shylock in The Merchant of Venice. the ironic thing is that old Will probably never met a Jew; we had been expelled from Britain for hundreds of years before his birth, and weren't readmitted till long after his death.

I don't know who that law benefited, either.

Here's the answer you're not going to like: Nobody, ever, just sat down and made this stuff up.

Whether you believe in God or not--whether there is a God or not--the people who wrote the Bible, and worked out the laws, and changed the interpretations of both, all through the centuries, DID believe in God.

The Alphabet Gang--you know, Y, P, H and the boys, who wrote the original, lost documentary sources of the Bible, were writing down oral traditions and stories that they believed to be true. The "redactor(s)" who edited those documents and brought the Bible to its present form, believed them to be true, too. And the men (mostly men, but not all) who worked out the details of Jewish law--and revised it, and re-revised it, as the Torah commanded us to do, believed in them too.

Nobody ever just got in a smoke-filled room and decided to put the Jewish pig farmers out of business. These people were really trying to work out what God wanted them to do, and they did it from the conviction that God wants justice, and fairness, and freedom, and equality for all his people.

Those very first writers and commentators probably had just as hard a time with the tales of bloody massacre and
genocide as we do today; but what could they do? Those were part of the stories that were handed down, and though they tried to make sense of them so the narrative "flowed," they didn't feel that they could just leave them out. We've been trying to work out a benign meaning for them since they were first written down. Still working on it, too.

Same for the sages who derived the laws from Scripture; they didn't think they had the right to just make up laws on their own--though sometimes they did find a way to make sure a law was never enforced, as with capital punishment (I've got an old post somewhere about that). It virtually never happened.

Through it all, the supreme authority was never the Bible itself, but the tradition of interpretation that we believe has been handed down alongside it, beginning with Moses at Sinai. It's called the "Oral Torah," and like it or not, we don't believe that the Bible can be understood without it.

And we do get to change what it says and means. In fact, we have to. God said so. Unlike, say, Baptists, we never get to say, "Okay, now we have all the answers. Open your mouth and close your eyes..." We have to keep on figuring it out in every generation.

Anyway, there you go. Thanks for the opportunity to write all this stuff down. More than you probably wanted, but that's the way I'm wired.

You know what I love most about this forum?

It's the first one I've ever been a member of where nobody complains that my posts are too long.

Thanks, everyone.

Peace.

Charles
 
I have read through this thread and find something absolutely astounding. The believers think it is impressive that the bible treated slaves no worse, or maybe even better, than the world at large!!

So, where is the moral guidance there? Even being completely uninspired by god's supposed word, I know slavery is immoral.

So, we have christians, jews and muslims trying to make a case as to why their treatment of slaves was better and we have an atheist saying, slavery is just plain wrong.

Can someone explain to me why anyone would think that the bigoted and violent beliefs of goat herding tribes from 2000 years ago have any moral value in today's world?
 
The Dog and the Wolf

A gaunt Wolf was almost dead with hunger when he happened to meet a House-dog who was passing by. "Ah, Cousin," said the Dog. "I knew how it would be; your irregular life will soon be the ruin of you. Why do you not work steadily as I do, and get your food regularly given to you?"

"I would have no objection," said the Wolf, "if I could only get a place."

"I will easily arrange that for you," said the Dog; "come with me to my master and you shall share my work."

So the Wolf and the Dog went towards the town together. On the way there the Wolf noticed that the hair on a certain part of the Dog's neck was very much worn away, so he asked him how that had come about.

"Oh, it is nothing," said the Dog. "That is only the place where the collar is put on at night to keep me chained up; it chafes a bit, but one soon gets used to it."

"Is that all?" said the Wolf. "Then good-bye to you, Master Dog."

Better starve free than be a fat slave.

Aesop former Greek slave, 7th Century BC.

Anyone know any stories by or about former Jewish slaves?
 
Last edited:
The Dog and the Wolf

A gaunt Wolf was almost dead with hunger when he happened to meet a House-dog who was passing by. "Ah, Cousin," said the Dog. "I knew how it would be; your irregular life will soon be the ruin of you. Why do you not work steadily as I do, and get your food regularly given to you?"

"I would have no objection," said the Wolf, "if I could only get a place."

"I will easily arrange that for you," said the Dog; "come with me to my master and you shall share my work."

So the Wolf and the Dog went towards the town together. On the way there the Wolf noticed that the hair on a certain part of the Dog's neck was very much worn away, so he asked him how that had come about.

"Oh, it is nothing," said the Dog. "That is only the place where the collar is put on at night to keep me chained up; it chafes a bit, but one soon gets used to it."

"Is that all?" said the Wolf. "Then good-bye to you, Master Dog."

Better starve free than be a fat slave.

Aesop former Greek slave, 7th Century BC.

Anyone know any stories by or about former Jewish slaves?

"We must not believe the many, who say that only free people should be educated, but we should rather believe the philosophers who say that only the educated are free."

EPICTETUS (Roman philosopher and former slave.)
 
I've picked a cherry for your consideration:

Exodus 21 (New International Version)

[20]If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, [21] but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

Ouch.
 
"We must not believe the many, who say that only free people should be educated, but we should rather believe the philosophers who say that only the educated are free."

EPICTETUS (Roman philosopher and former slave.)

I actually picked the idea up from your signature. I presume that Epictetus was not a freed Jewish slave? :confused:
 
I have read through this thread and find something absolutely astounding. The believers think it is impressive that the bible treated slaves no worse, or maybe even better, than the world at large!!

So, where is the moral guidance there? Even being completely uninspired by god's supposed word, I know slavery is immoral.

So, we have christians, jews and muslims trying to make a case as to why their treatment of slaves was better and we have an atheist saying, slavery is just plain wrong.

Can someone explain to me why anyone would think that the bigoted and violent beliefs of goat herding tribes from 2000 years ago have any moral value in today's world?

I agree. We don't get "moral updates" from god. If God was only going to spell out the rules once or twice, why not say: "Slavery is wrong, period." And how do we know it is wrong? Maybe God actually thinks slavery with regulations (as spelled out in the Bible) is perfectly fine. After all, he is depicted as an extremely violent entity. But how would we know? Which parts of the Bible are to be taken literally? Which parts are outdated and no longer apply? Isn't that a subjective call?

The Bible used to be used to defend slavery in the U.S. What changed? Were we interpreting scripture wrong back then, but correctly now? How would we know?

Also (if this hasn't already been pointed out), the Bible has been used to argue for and against civil rights, women's rights, drinking alcohol, and on and on. The argument can be made that homosexuality is a sin, and others interpret the same passages differently. Let's say for the sake of argument that scripture clearly calls homosexuality a sin. Does that only apply to the ancient world, like slavery? IOW, it applied two or three thousand years ago, but not now? How would we know?

Was God OK with regulated slavery back then, but now he's completely against it?
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom