Slavery is ok in the bible

44 posts

Flag Post

So I was just wondering what people, mainly religious people think about this and why do you think it’s ok to own a slave according to the bible, do you agree with it?

 
Flag Post

Because this thread has never been made before…

 
Flag Post

I do not believe in God, believe nothing that is in the bible. If I were religious, I’d been Satanist, so superstitious as believing in God.

 
Flag Post

I’ve voiced my opinion on this issue before, in both major threads discussing it. Whilst I disagree with biblical slavery, I see nothing wrong with consentual slavery, providing all parties go into it with their eyes open, well aware of the possible consequences.

The problems with biblical slavery were multiple, including it being mandatorilly imposed based on race or nationality, or by gender, not on an individual by individual basis. The bible held one nationality as superior, a primary race if you will, with rights over and above all other sentients in creation.

At the time it was written it may have made sense, in a desert landscape where basic living resources were often thin on the ground and widely spaced, but it realistically makes no sense outside of that envionment, and is a dangerous way of thinking since it elevates the station of believers of a particular origin for no justifiable reason.

 
Flag Post

So what?
As far as I know,,,
the Bible isn’t the laws we use today.

That means YOUR OP really is ONLY a religious issue.
We already have enough threads involving this.

SO, why dontchya delete this one and go to one of those I mention and bring up “Biblical slavery” there?

Addendum: Well crap.
vika just (a MINUTE before my post) made a very cogent addition that probably has now put “breath” into this thread in a way that gives it some “validity”….LOL

 
Flag Post

My view on it is that Wraymond’s trying at least, Karma, which is better than his prior behavior. If he can refrain from insulting those who try to give his thread a chance this time, and be willing to actually participate in discussion of the topic he brought up, I vote we try to give his thread a chance. It is a repeat of a prior thread yes, but it’s a repeat of a topic – justifiations for slavery – that we have not had in a while.

Yeah, its a little too much religiously orientated, but its up to us how we run with that. I’m interested in downplaying the religious side, and looking at how the idea was culturally ingrained at the time that works roots were written, and the dangers of such ways of thinking. They’ve been expressed in more recent times in similar fashions after all – the Master Race comes to mind, with a very similar philosophical bent.

 
Flag Post

LOL, vika…see my addendum just above your post.

And, ya’re right.
His recent behavior (being a turd) somewhat generated a “bias” on my part.
I (erroneously?) felt contributing to a thread of his would likely “go to his head” and “validate” this less-than-acceptable activity of his.

BUT, perhaps if given a chance to behave in a “serious manner”….
he will now do so consistently.
Hope springs eternally….lol

 
Flag Post

So vika is okay with a “different kinda slavery, itsokaybro”. It’s still slavery.

Big surprise.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by PatriotSaint:

So vika is okay with a “different kinda slavery, itsokaybro”. It’s still slavery.

Big surprise.

YOU obviously FAILED to grasp what she was saying.
BIG surprise.
What YOU did was say that the Titanic “voyage” was still a boat ride.
Huge differences in how “slavery” can be viewed.
Esp. when one does it w/ an OPEN MIND.
 
Flag Post

If the slave to be agrees to be a slave and a contract is made, is it still slavery?

And on the same level, if a court appoints a caretaker for a mentally ill person is that institutionalized slavery?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Ferrus_Animus:

If the slave to be agrees to be a slave and a contract is made, is it still slavery?

I think that in this case slavery has two different defining aspects:

  • the slave identifies himself with the role of a slave.
  • The contract defines his role as the one of a slave, which differs from the role of for example a butler.

And on the same level, if a court appoints a caretaker for a mentally ill person is that institutionalized slavery?

I wouldn’t say so. A caretaker needs very special training in order to do his job. But what really makes him different to a slave is that he had more rights.

Opinions may differ here, but to me a defining point of slavery is that a slave has less pre-given rights than other people. The owner us responsible for setting up the rules of this relationship. Speaking of ownership, in traditional slavery this legal treatment of a slave as property rather than a person its also very important. It all boils down to the owner having significantly more fundamental rights than the slave.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by EPR89:
Originally posted by Ferrus_Animus:

If the slave to be agrees to be a slave and a contract is made, is it still slavery?

I think that in this case slavery has two different defining aspects:

  • the slave identifies himself with the role of a slave.
  • The contract defines his role as the one of a slave, which differs from the role of for example a butler.

Aha, EPR…I was waiting for someone to touch on this area of contractual slavery
Thanks for the “opening”.

AND, while it isn’t a true fact in the typical notion of slavery, we very much are slaves to our “economic needs”.
(Sing to the tune of the 7 Dwarfs): I owe, I owe, so off to work I go.

There there is 16 Tons sung by Tennesse Ernie Ford.
The miner "owes his soul to the company store.
At one time, the miners of the coal areas of Virginia were labor who had very little.
The owners of the mines kept it that way.
They provided the housing and had a company store where the miners’ families bought everything…clothes, food, etc.
Miners were paid in company money, scrip, which was worthless outside of the mining town.
This prevented them from being able to shop elsewhere for better prices.

From the link: “According to Travis, the line from the chorus “another day older and deeper in debt” was a phrase often used by his father, a coal miner himself.4 This and the line “I owe my soul to the company store” is a reference to the truck system and to debt bondage. Under this scrip system, workers were not paid cash; rather they were paid with non-transferable credit vouchers which could be exchanged for only goods sold at the company store. This made it impossible for workers to store up cash savings. Workers also usually lived in company-owned dormitories or houses, the rent for which was automatically deducted from their pay. In the United States the truck system and associated debt bondage persisted until the strikes of the newly formed United Mine Workers and affiliated unions forced an end to such practices."

It has always been the effort of the “owner” to keep the worker at a pay//consumption rate that basically “indentures” them “bonded” to their job….much as a form of slavery, but without the more nortorious (but not as common as was popularized by Old South literature) treatment of its slaves. I should point out that slavery also existed in the North.

Those slaves were basically “tools”.
The owner of a tool is a fool to not take good care of his tools.
Many popularly held concepts of slavery in America are myths.

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

I was at church and someone in my class asked why there is slavery that seems to be condoned in the bible by God. My brother answered that slavery wasn’t as bad as it has previously and currently been. In my opinion, slavery is slavery. It’s something I cannot really see being justifiable.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by EPR89:

I think that in this case slavery has two different defining aspects:

  • the slave identifies himself with the role of a slave.
  • The contract defines his role as the one of a slave, which differs from the role of for example a butler.


It all boils down to the owner having significantly more fundamental rights than the slave.

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
The owner of a tool is a fool to not take good care of this tools.

With regards to the contractual slavery type I had in mind when I wrote the post above, both are right, yeah. The potential slave goes into it well aware of what it would mean for him / her. Once the enslavement process is complete, the new slave has absolutely no rights whatsoever. They’re chattel, property. Nothing more.

However, as Karma points out, there’s a heck of a lot of effort and responsibility involved in this type of slave ownership, and any owner who doesn’t see their investment grow and the value of their property increase, is a fool. A fool and their property are soon parted, usually by someone who is rather less of a fool and sees the potential.

RL, I’ve rarely seen this type of contractual slavery in greater numbers than a ratio of one owner to three slaves. The most I’ve ever come across was five slaves, and to say that household was strained is putting it mildly. There’s just too much work involved by all parties for economies of scale to work out too well. The amount of backbiting going on in that home was also rather impressive.

As Karma has said, if you’re not using this property as personal servants and have a more distant relationship as a workforce boss, then the numbers can be rather larger. But still, there is this need to maintain the infrastructure to support them, and you don’t wish to see your best workers come into ill health or suffer for basic necessities because then you are devaluing your own property, and you’ll get far lesser returns from said property – the value of your investment will go down instead of up.

 
Flag Post

Sorry if I offended people in the past. I didn’t mean to. And I mean that. I only meant to make a point but I’m done posting on this website.

 
Flag Post

Goodbye

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Wraymond:

Goodbye

You brought up the big issue that CAUSED the American CIVIL WAR. (there were other, secondary causes, but slavery was the root cause). You stepped on a landmine, and then you’re surprised by the reaction?

At any rate, aside from giving women the short end of the stick, biblical slavery laws require you to set the slaves free after 7(?) years. In the event said slave actually wants to remain a slave (for whatever reason), they can show up in front of a bunch of people and ask to have their ear pierced. And remember, this isn’t with a super-sharp steel tool, this is with whatever material happens to be available, that was probably washed in water that, while ceremonially clean, was not necessarily sterilized in boiling water.

Keep this in mind before trying to use a biblical justification for slavery.

 
Flag Post

…but slavery was the root cause

The root cause was economic and representational disparity bertween north and south. The conflict had been brewing for decades. Lincoln won the 1860 election without even bothering to contest some of the southern states, and that very clear demonstration of their impotence led directly to secession in the south. Slavery was just one of the big issues at the time.

…biblical slavery laws require you to set the slaves free after 7(?) years.

It was a lot more complicated than that. Slavery was ingrained into the culture and mores of the entire region, and there was a whole raft of laws about who one could and could not enslave, for what purpose and for how long. The Israelites were allowed to enslave each other in certain circumstances, as well as being allowed to enslave foreigners pretty much as a matter of course. There was no “shock, horror” about slavery, it was perfectly normal, and few if any would have seen it as in any way immoral.

And I’m not sure that the possibility of an infected earlobe is the greatest arguement against slavery that I have ever seen.

 
Flag Post

The earlobe stuff was mostly to emphasize how much someone had to want to reman a slave before they would remain a slave.

…I take it we’re all trying to treat this as an axiom thread, right? literal interpretation of the bible etc with an emphasis on the old testament?

Anyways, my point is that modern slavery, where it occurs, does not follow levitican slavery law, and therefore voids the use of word-for-word old-testament support. “the culture was different” only emphasizes my point.

Of course, if we’re going to switch to a more flexible interpretaion, I’ll need to flesh it out a lot more…
And maybe re-read leviticus.

 
Flag Post

I don’t think modern day slavery has much in common with slavery in biblical times, and to my mind cannot possibly be justified on the basis of how societies operated three thouand years ago. Slavery, or at least practices very close to it, is very widespread today.

Debt bondage in India and Pakistan, although technically illegal, is commonplace. The forcible conscription of both adults and children into rebel armies is commonly practised across much of Africa. Human trafficking for both forced labour and sexual purposes is widely reported throughout much of Latin America and the Middle East. Families often force their daughters into prostitution in south east Asia. The fact that it is frequently done out of economic necessity does not mitigate the fact that it is a form of slavery. The Japanese enslaved POWs during WWII, forcing them to build roads and railways for their own war effort. I don’t hear any of those groups justifying their actions by referencing the Bible.

In his OP, Wraymond seems to be suggesting that slavery has something to do with religion, particularly the Abrahamic ones. It doesn’t. The followers of those religions used, and in some cases still use, slavery, but they didn’t invent it. It’s not only about need and greed, it is to some degree about culture too, just not biblical culture. Up until the nineteenth century we all did it, and thought little of it. Abolition is a modern idea, and much of the world hasn’t caught up with us yet.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by fractalman:
In the event said slave actually wants to remain a slave (for whatever reason), they can show up in front of a bunch of people and ask to have their ear pierced.

Even this is erroneous, in that the slave may not wish to stay a slave. A couple of modern-day varients on slavery still use this or a similar physical signifier. Human nature being what it is, it is comparatively easy to threaten harm to relatives of the slave, or people they loved before they were enslaved, and use this threat of harm to others to compell them to take the mark of permanent enslavement.

Its also rather easy for the small group of ‘public spectators’ to be friends with a vested interest in keeping a given slave permanently enslaved. If they all agree the slave asked for it to be done, then that must have happened, right?

There’s only really one guaranteed way out of enslavement, and its the same path as the way out of life. Everything else is up to the whim of the owners, whatever the rules might actually say.

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

Maybe that’s because the Bible is a piece of shut. I’m gonna get a stack of Bibles and burn them.

 
Flag Post

This is yet another reason why I’m an atheist.