Religion Slavery and the Bible

[strongvoicesforward]

1. "I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt..."

=> Brought out of Egypt ? Whom ? People of European descent ? Filipinos ? Coptic Christian Egyptians ? It is not only anachronistic and out of tune with reality, but could even be seen as offensive regarding Egyptians (esp. Christian Egyptians).

Good point, Maciamo. And, while we are touching on "those who were brought out of the land of Egypt":

The Eqyptians were an advanced society for that region during that time. They meticulously recorded the events of importance during the reigns of their Kings in heirogryphics. Now, if the construction of the pyramids, the economy, or other aspects of thier society rested in part on slave labor, in fact on the slave labor of an ENTIRE nation of people, and THEN -- All of a sudden these people were freed by the Pharoah after an intense battle with a prophet, and then gave chase to them as they fled in an attempt to enslave them again, and in fact all the slaves escaped, and that a large part, or some part of his army was destroyed, ISN`T IS STRANGE that not one recording in any heirogryphics of this great mementous event was ever recorded? You are talking about the defeat of a KING in a society where there were literate people with the ability to record events. Surely, this great series of monumental events which would have impacted their society in some large scale would have been recorded by others and some reference of it would have been found. The fact that it is only found in the Bible gives it up as a story of nomadic people before they became settled and agrarian.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Religion brings peace.

<snicker snicker> Religion brought slavery. Religion regulated slavery. Relgion brings guilt for masterbation and "spillage."




*note: in the Bible paradigm.

 

[Revenant]

<snicker snicker> Religion brought slavery. Religion regulated slavery. Relgion brings guilt for masterbation and "spillage."




*note: in the Bible paradigm.

Really, I haven't enjoyed reading the religious threads as much since you entered them. What was once a haven of more civilized religious debates has become much more like every other forum now, full of anti-religious zealots doing as you just did (<snicker snicker> is what I speak of).

But Yahweh never brought slavery. Slavery was already well established long before the five "books of Moses" (Moses isn't actually the probable author of these books) were ever penned. Slavery was just a part of their culture, and of all cultures around them, so the laws regarding slavery were simply attempting to regulate and do away with the absolutely worst of the worst slavery practices according to some Christian apologists.

As to masturbation and 'spillage', at least the spillage part applies to none but some Fundamentalists. Omen according to most Christians wasn't struck down for spilling semen, but simply for his intentions, and that being that he wasn't going to carry his brother's honor by bringing him a son, but that out of spite, he intentionally tried to make this never happen.

 

[Mycernius]

The Eqyptians were an advanced society for that region during that time. They meticulously recorded the events of importance during the reigns of their Kings in heirogryphics. Now, if the construction of the pyramids, the economy, or other aspects of thier society rested in part on slave labor, in fact on the slave labor of an ENTIRE nation of people, and THEN -- All of a sudden these people were freed by the Pharoah after an intense battle with a prophet, and then gave chase to them as they fled in an attempt to enslave them again, and in fact all the slaves escaped, and that a large part, or some part of his army was destroyed, ISN`T IS STRANGE that not one recording in any heirogryphics of this great mementous event was ever recorded? You are talking about the defeat of a KING in a society where there were literate people with the ability to record events. Surely, this great series of monumental events which would have impacted their society in some large scale would have been recorded by others and some reference of it would have been found. The fact that it is only found in the Bible gives it up as a story of nomadic people before they became settled and agrarian.

Just to add to this. The pharoh mentioned in the Bible was never given a name, but it was at one time thought to be Rameses II. A bit difficult as he was about 92 when he died in 1212 BC and the exodus of the Jews was thought to be in 1263 BC. Some have thought the pharoh was his sucessor, Merneptah, as his body was not found in its tomb or in the caches of Royal mummies found in 1881. Unfortunately for biblical believers his body was found in the tomb of Amenhotep II with a cache of 16 mummies in 1898.
A SVF said, such a historic event doesn't even get a minor mention in Egyptian records. As they are somewhat more reliable and precise than one highly biased history document, I've a tendency to believe the Egyptian records rather than the grandiose myth in Exodus.

 

[Revenant]

Where does the Bible speak against masturbation?

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Where does the Bible speak against masturbation?

Revenant, I can`t believe you nibbled on that little bait of sarcasm. It was referring to puriant Xtians in the past who tabooed anything to do with the body and giving many axieties about their bodies. Clinical/psychological studies is rife with those reportings.

But, if you want to look at how warped the concept of BGOD is, just look at the "spillage" story. The guy did not want to have sex with his sister in law. BGOD ordered him to fornicate and to make his sister in law commit adultery. Is that moral to have a GOD of timelessness to break his own morals? To me it isn`t. Why isn't it to you?

The Bible even says that "God is not a man that he should change his mind." If he is omnipotent and is everywhere at all times, past and present and future, his moral conduct and laws have always been in existence -- and here he is going against his own morals.

No wonder Lucipher and some angels felt a need to rebel in Heaven. They didn`t have a leader setting an example that obeyed his own laws of morality. Kind of like a facsist dictator and not one that is benevolent.

BGOD was the first classic example of a leader who espoused, "Do as I say, not as I do," for He was not very good or moral. What Xtians are left with is: not a choice between a god of good and a devil of evil, but rather -- two devils, one being slightly more evil than the other.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

...[the forum is] full of anti-religious zealots doing as you just did (<snicker snicker> is what I speak of).

Revenant, "<snicker snicker>" is no more offensive than the smily jumping icons that we are permitted to use in the forum. I merely choose the text version.

Have I used any expletives? Have I used any pajoratives? Do you have something against witticisms like one of your other brothers here?

You and your religion are not a target of your dreaded imaginary "anti-superstition zealots." Your superstition has merely painted a big bullseye on its broadside inviting the bullets of Reason and Logic (i.e. arguments that do not apologize and tip-toe around issues) to seek its heart.

Don`t divert with unfounded charges. Debate with well focused replies.

Don`t divert! Debate!

 

[strongvoicesforward]

But Yahweh never brought slavery. Slavery was already well established long before the five "books of Moses" (Moses isn't actually the probable author of these books) were ever penned. Slavery was just a part of their culture, and of all cultures around them, ...

Revenant, I believe you that slavery was established before the Bible because I believe the world to be much older than what the chronologies of the Bible could make it out to be. However, if we are going to go by the Bible as what it says, there is no indication that slavery existed before God first brings it up by selling/sending his people into slavery. I don`t know, can you show me where it indicates slavery was in existence in the Biblical paradigm before God sold the people into slavery? If not, and it isn`t mentioned, then it looks to me like He did in fact bring it about to fit his own nefarious purposes -- i.e. as a tool of punishment. Pretty harsh punishment if you ask me. One that kind of lingers for centuries like a drug that makes junkies out of it.

If Moses isn`t the author of these books then I will not disagree on that point. We will simply agree that some deception or conspiracy is underway by attributing something to someone when in fact it is wrong to do so. I don`t like deception. Do you? I tend to reject things I feel are deceiving me. Why don`t you?

Show me in the Bible that indicates slavery was a part of their culture and all around them before BGOD sent them off into slavery? You are going into presumptionism and I will rescind that charge if you show me the verses that make slavery to be a part of the social network before BGod sends them into it.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

...so the laws regarding slavery were simply attempting to regulate and do away with the absolutely worst of the worst slavery practices according to some Christian apologists.

"According to some Christian apologists!?!" How about according to the Bible!? Read it and tell me what you come up with? You have one, don`t you? Use it. The Xtian apologists you are referencing aren`t here to defend their assertions, are they? You are. If you are going to respect their answers as proxies, you should be prepared to offer them. What is your explanation based on what verses?

1 Pet 2:18~21
Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. For it is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because he is conscious of God. But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.

Now, Jesus suffered horribly and here is Peter using Jesus as an example to encourage slaves to just grin and bear it and to come back for more with respect for the one who has treated them in a dispicable manner, possibly in similar ways Jesus was treated. Is BGOD a masochist to see this as good? I know we reserve that word for those who view this kind of bodily debasement as good. It should be aptly applied.

The question to you is, how do you reconcile your comment of doing away with the worst of abuses with this passage? In fact, the onous of responsibility isn`t even place on the slave owner -- it is placed on the slave. Now, how can the slave do anything to do away with any abuse that is codified against him when he is admonished to respect the person administering the abuse and to submit and endure it? What is your reasoning in regards to how this passage helps to assuage the worse of the worse? Please answer.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Omen according to most Christians wasn't struck down for spilling semen, but simply for his intentions, and that being that he wasn't going to carry his brother's honor by bringing him a son, but that out of spite, he intentionally tried to make this never happen.

I will accept that as a BGOD reason within the Bible, however, to administer death as a punishment out of anger for a little disobedience, which may have been reasonably justified, BGOD is displaying not the figure of a father (which is how He is portrayed to us as), which is merciful and compassionat to his children -- but as a despot who cannot practice judicial punishment with restraint, or even be creative enough to further his plan without causing and taking death.

To impose this punishment and even requesting that Onan do this in the first place is violating the doctrine of Free Will, which we are reminded was given to us by apologists (which you leaned on prior) so that we wouldn`t be mindless robots walking around doing just exactly what he expects. Our punishments for not doing what he expects is supposed to be metted out and waiting for us on the day of judgement.

 

[No-name]

The slavery issue is a very difficult one that I believe warrants deeper discussion.

 

[Revenant]

Strongvoicesforward, Christianity is not my religion, it is the relgion I was however brought up in. I have seen slavery in the Bible discussed on a couple other forums recently, and was just putting forth the argument from the other side.

As to your debating style, one can discuss any subject and still maintain a certain amount of respect for another's opinion. Honestly I haven't seen you be near to respectful of the opposing side's opinion, but that has already been brought up by a few other members here, and I don't suppose my bringing it up again will change anything.

One reason that such an event as described in the Bible, that of the Israelite slaves escaping out of slavery were never recorded in the Heiroglyphics could simply be that the entire event was an embarrassment to the Egyptian. That however wouldn't explain why it wasn't recorded elsewhere.

The other possible explanation that holds more water is that it was purely a story written for the Israelites during their exile in Persia. It was a story simply meant to bring the Israelites hope, and myths were ideal for bringing people hope.

Was slavery around before God sent the israelites into slavery according to the Bible? What of the story of Joseph being sold into slavery?

As to the passage in Peter that you quoted, it is my understanding that it simply means one should not retaliate, or seek freedom from the situation that God has placed one in. I however haven't given a whole lot of thought to the subject, and probably never will.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Strongvoicesforward: I will accept that as a BGOD reason within the Bible, however, to administer death as a punishment out of anger for a little disobedience, which may have been reasonably justified, BGOD is displaying not the figure of a father (which is how He is portrayed to us as), which is merciful and compassionat to his children -- but as a despot who cannot practice judicial punishment with restraint, or even be creative enough to further his plan without causing and taking death.

To impose this punishment and even requesting that Onan do this in the first place is violating the doctrine of Free Will, which we are reminded was given to us by apologists (which you leaned on prior) so that we wouldn`t be mindless robots walking around doing just exactly what he expects. Our punishments for not doing what he expects is supposed to be metted out and waiting for us on the day of judgement.

The post above is mine from #10. No one has addressed the broken image of BGod given to us as a father figure bereft of mercy and compassion.

No one has addressed BGod not exercising restraint in regards to judicial punishment.

No one has addressed the lack of creativity of BGod for accomplishing things without resorting to killing.

No one has addressed the corruption of the Doctrine of Free Will.

 

[No-name]

I think this is worth exploring. If Strongvoicesforward will keep from demeaning and mocking for enough time to discuss the actual issue- I think it is worth a try.

I do not have a good answer for this question- and the responses I got from people in Church today was disappointing. So far- Revenant's response made the most sense to me-- So what I think is a good tact right now is to to post a few more verses and put them up for response.

SFV- do you think you can be civil?

 

[No-name]

These Old Testament verses seem to regulate the institution:

Slaves were property, but had limited protection:
Exodus 21:20-21 "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money [property]."
Exodus 21:26-27 "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. 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."

They were to be freed after six years (or in the year of Jubilee)
Exodus 21:1-4: "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself."
Deuteronomy 15:12-18: "And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee.And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty: Thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy winepress: of that wherewith the LORD thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him."

I'm not certain if this exempted women from the freedom clause or from outside work:
Exodus 21:7: "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do."

Foreigners could be slaves for life:
Leviticus 25:44-46: "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 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. 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." (NIV)

Slaves could be freed by relatives:
Leviticus 25:48-53: "After that he is sold he may be redeemed again; one of his brethren may redeem him: Either his uncle, or his uncle's son, may redeem him, or any that is nigh of kin unto him of his family may redeem him; or if he be able, he may redeem himself. And he shall reckon with him that bought him from the year that he was sold to him unto the year of jubilee: and the price of his sale shall be according unto the number of years, according to the time of an hired servant shall it be with him."

If you married a slave, she became free:
Exodus 21:8: "If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money."

This one seemed rather unfair:
Leviticus 19:20-22: "And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free. And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering. And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the LORD for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him."

This one has an interesting application in the New Testament when Paul asks an escaped slave to return to his Master:
Deuteronomy 23:15-16: "Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee: 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."

 

[No-name]

Interestingly enough- some slaves like Joseph, Ziba and Ruth- actually became really powerful within their position and ruled over nations. Others took care of their owner's business. There are even indications that slaves had outside jobs, owned property, businesses and other slaves:
2 Samuel 9:10 "...Now Ziba had fifteen sons and twenty servants."

Slaves were not required to work on Saturday. Exodus 20:10 "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, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:"


Next:New Testament

 

[No-name]

Jesus never spoke out against slavery and even used slavery in parables like this one:
Luke 12:45-48: "The lord [owner] of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more."

Paul's admonition that slaves obey their masters like they obey Christ:
Luke 12:45-48: "The lord [owner] of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more."

Admonitions that masters that they treat slaves properly:
Colossians 4:1: "Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven."
1 Timothy 6:1-3 "Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort. If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;"

Paul again writing that slaves are equals and free:
Colossians 4:1: "Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven."
1 Timothy 6:1-3 "Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort. If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;"

And in the letter of Philemon- Onesimus- an escaped slave who had earned sanctuary under the Dueteronomy law is asked by Paul to return himself.

http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=94

 

[No-name]

So- should we as Christians ignore these verses, make excuses for them, explain them away, or attack them head on. (I'm actually not certain what to do- the above site where I got the verses from does a great job of mitigating-- which I might repeat.)

 

[strongvoicesforward]

...the above site...

Gee, Sabro, why don`t you list one or two passages, even three? -- but not such large parts. Instead of just a long list like that without any analysis from you it is better to not list.

Sure, some of my posts are long but they are not just lists -- I have something to say. I know Mars Man`s (who you keep imploring like a deity) thread had some analysis of his throughout, but his, too, were often long long lists without analysis of the verses well on heel of each or every one to follow up. That becomes an exercise in monotony.

We can all post lists. What we want when a passage or two, or three -- and not so many verses included, are listed -- we want analysis. Where is your analysis? Don`t just list. Analyse and proffer something based on reason about what you list.

Listing makes me start to think you are getting into mantra repeating mode to make those nearby fall under the spell.

 

[No-name]

1. I listed the verses so that they would be available for analysis by everyone, not just me. They are nearly the sum total of verses I could find that have to do with the Bible's view on slavery and I thought it would be a good starting point. My only comments were not analytical, but more descriptive.

2. Mars Man and I disagree about almost everything. Like you, he is an atheist who believes the Bible is full of errors and contradictions. I pointed him out because although we disagree- often in heated exchanges -he never crosses those lines that I would call into question.

3. I don't have an analysis yet. Saying I don't know what to do with them or what tactic to take is no ploy. This is a seeming contradiction that I can't give a ready answer to. No mantra- just a list at this point. But don't worry...I'm not dead yet.