can i own slaves according to the bible?

Author: n8nrgmi 4 years ago

Posts

Total: 93

#61

ethang5

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875

ethang5

03.10.2020 07:49PM

-->

@ludofl3x

So the bible does NOT have a verse that says "thou shalt not own slaves,"

Sure it does. The bible even gives the death penalty for owning or selling slaves. That your militant atheism forces you to be obtuse does not change the truth.

but it DOES have a verse that instructs slaves to obey their masters.

Of course. The bible tells Christians to be respectful and truthful to all authority figures.

What you quoted is your bias making you interpret the bible in a way in which you like, not you looking at what the bible actually SAYS.

Lol. Five verses? Condemning slavery, calling it evil? Saying not to do it? Telling Christians not to return runaway slaves to their slavery? Do you care about your integrity?

You can simply say "I"m sorry, got that one wrong, stepped in it a little, what I meant to say is there are many places in the bible that can be interpreted as anti-slavery, though the language could be clearer."

I could, but honesty and truth matter to me.

You're like Messi if half of his goals were own goals and the other half flew into the stands rather than the net.

And you're like the guy who denies its a goal because Messi used his head.

We can agree to disagree Ludo, but your case is ludicrous. And this is why though millions upon millions have read these passages, including slaves themselves, very few hold the position you do.

#62

secularmerlin

Debates: 0

Posts: 7,093

secularmerlin

03.10.2020 08:21PM

-->

@ethang5

What the book is being used for might be different from the authors intent in writing the book.

Very true but in this case the chances of asking the author directly are not good. In that case I have no choice but to make my own determinations or adopt the determinations of other humans who also have not spoken to the author. This is also the choice you are left with. Since however we were discussing whether it was biblically permissible to own slaves I was taking it as a given that we were approaching it as a source of moral pronouncements. If you feel that the bible is not meant as a moral guide or that it makes a poor one we can approach it as such.

states that you can own people as property that it means you can own people as property.
But that is not what it says. That is what you assume it says because you are American who finds it almost impossible to think of slavery in a non old american south way.

I was actually only making comments on the contents of the book in question. If by coincidence it was also considered moral to own people as property in the American south pre civil war then that may also be a topic worth touching on but you are actually the one who brought it up not I.

This isn't the first time we've talked secmer. You have never shown a contradiction in the bible.

Only contradictions if the text is taken at face value. The bible is only contradictory if it means what it says. It is interesting however how much interpretation the passages seem to need before they can be said to agree.

I consider owning people as property to be immoral regardless of who does the owning.
Our debate is not about what you consider to be immoral, but whether the bible condones slavery.

Well are we discussing the bible as a source of morality or not? I taking the text at face value cannot help but see that it would at least appear in many places to condone slavery and you mention that we cannot know the authors actual intention which is not necessarily untrue, but if that is the case then why does it matter what it says? After all we do not know the purpose of that passage. Perhaps it was meant only for entertainment purposes... like Dr. Phil.

#63

ethang5

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875

ethang5

03.10.2020 08:38PM

-->

@secularmerlin

If you feel that the bible is not meant as a moral guide or that it makes a poor one we can approach it as such.

This is a copout and deceptive. You do not believe in morality. How we approach the bible should be determined by what it says, not what other take it as.

Only contradictions if the text is taken at face value. The bible is only contradictory if it means what it says.

That is your little anti-intellectual hidey-hole. That is why you cannot address the analogy of the terms used today in the sales of pro athletes.

You assume a meaning and then claim your assumed meaning is what the bible means. To prove this, when I ask you, "If the bible means owning people, why is a master punished for maiming or killing his slave?" you run away. Because an honest answer would obliterate your claim and your obtuse ploy.

It is interesting however how much interpretation the passages seem to need before they can be said to agree.

So you say, but your position has always been, and remains a fringe one. What you mean of course is that the passages seem to need a lot of interpretation away from your spin before they can be said to agree

...but if that is the case then why does it matter what it says?

Truth matters. Your claim that the bible condones slavery is obviously untrue.

#64

secularmerlin

Debates: 0

Posts: 7,093

secularmerlin

03.10.2020 08:47PM

-->

@ethang5

You do not believe in morality.

This is untrue.

#65

secularmerlin

Debates: 0

Posts: 7,093

secularmerlin

03.10.2020 08:48PM

-->

@ethang5

How we approach the bible should be determined by what it says, not what other take it as.

I agree and yet we seem to still be in disagreement.

#66

secularmerlin

Debates: 0

Posts: 7,093

secularmerlin

03.10.2020 08:49PM

-->

@ethang5

If the bible means owning people, why is a master punished for maiming or killing his slave?

For the same reason you would be held legally accountable for abusing a dog even though you own the animal as property.

#67

secularmerlin

Debates: 0

Posts: 7,093

secularmerlin

03.10.2020 08:51PM

-->

@ethang5

What you mean of course is that the passages seem to need a lot of interpretation away from your spin before they can be said to agree

I am not attempting to interpret the passages at all. I am taking them completely at face value. You claim that this is incorrect.

#68

secularmerlin

Debates: 0

Posts: 7,093

secularmerlin

03.10.2020 08:59PM

-->

@ethang5

You know I'm looking at all the messages this is generating and I can't help but think that this whole gish gallop thing that you do tends to lead to inefficiency in our discussions. Why don't you decide what you would actually like to focus on first and we will discuss that to the end before getting into all these tangents

#69

ethang5

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875

ethang5

03.10.2020 09:37PM

-->

@secularmerlin

I agree and yet we seem to still be in disagreement.

Because you aren't taking what it says. You are taking your bias.

For the same reason you would be held legally accountable for abusing a dog even though you own the animal as property.

Ancient Israel had cruelty to animal laws? Please don't be ludicrous.

I am taking them completely at face value

Untrue. For example, one verse say, if a brother falls into hard times and sells himself to you, do not great him as a slave. What "face value" is that? Another verse says anyone kidnapping someone for slavery, or to be sold into slavery, deserves the death penalty, how do you get condoning slavery from that?

What is face value to you? "You must purge the evil of slavery from among you." What face value does that give you? Everyone has some sort of bias, but few people are are clueless about their bias as you are.

I have gone into no tangents. I address what you bring up. And if my arguments were inefficient, you wouldn't be dancing and dodging as you are.

Your claim was that the bible condones slavery. I have shown you that that is untrue by posting numerous verses that unequivocally condemn slavery.

You claim that the bible contradicts itself on slavery is untrue. Your claim that the bible needs much interpretation to make it against slavery is illogical.

Your opinion of the bible on slavery is based simply on your personal bias. Nothing else. And that is fine, my issue is that you seem unaware that your personal bias is not reality.

#70

secularmerlin

Debates: 0

Posts: 7,093

secularmerlin

03.10.2020 10:05PM

-->

@ethang5

You must purge the evil of slavery from among you

<br>

I am unaware of this biblical passage although there is a passage in Corinthians that reads purge the wicked man from among you.

#71

secularmerlin

Debates: 0

Posts: 7,093

secularmerlin

03.10.2020 10:09PM

-->

@ethang5

Because you aren't taking what it says. You are taking your bias.

Ok leys talk about that. The wording of the passage is that you may buy your servants (for your benefit although the word slave is definitely used in many translations) from the heathen around you and goes on to say that you own them as property and can pass them down as inheritance. If that is not what the passage means then it cannot be tr aken at face value but unless you have some structured and objective metric by which you make said interpretations I have no choice but to believe that it means exactly what it says.

#72

ethang5

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875

ethang5

03.10.2020 10:25PM

-->

@secularmerlin

...although the word slave is definitely used in many translations

The text is thousands of years old, words change their meaning over time. Words can also have more than one meaning.

If that is not what the passage means...

What is "that" slick? Don't use an article. Spell it out.

The bible had previously spelled out that it is referring to indentured servitude. It says so several times in several places.

I have no choice but to believe that it means exactly what it says.

But it doesn't mean what you say it means.

Sorry, the verses have a context, and that context is not your myopic western, 20th century take.

#73

secularmerlin

Debates: 0

Posts: 7,093

secularmerlin

03.10.2020 10:57PM

-->

@ethang5

The text is thousands of years old, words change their meaning over time. Words can also have more than one meaning.

Regardless of the word you use the meaning is owning a person as property. You may use whatever word you like but that is the meaning.

#74

ethang5

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875

ethang5

03.11.2020 06:04AM

-->

@secularmerlin

Regardless of the word you use the meaning is owning a person as property.

Sorry, but the meaning is determined by the text, not your bias.

You may use whatever word you like but that is the meaning.

No sir. Neither of us may use whatever word we like. The meaning is decided by the text.

You come into a text and simply declare that "this" is the meaning? By ignoring previous verses setting the context? By being hyper-literal? By assuming meanings instead of getting them from the text?

You think if you run away from questions, your flawed argument is correct? You must build your case, not simply keep it unexplored.

Here are some contextual points you are being obtuse about.

*Jews did not have a concept of humans owning other humans. They believed only God could own a human being. The verses must be interpreted with this belief in mind.

*Previous verses condemn slavery, the taking by force of a person for slavery, and the selling of a person into slavery. The verses must be interpreted with this law in mind.

*Slaves were not owned as evidenced by the two facts, they were to be freed (from their indenture) if deliberately maimed, and they were to be automatically freed every 7 years regardless of debt.

*You take your meaning from your 20th century ideas about slavery which is tainted by the American experience. Your meaning should come from the text.

Hyper-realism is for the mentally weak. I can go through your last few posts and question you using the same hyper-literal standard you want to use on the bible, and you will run and dodge the questions like an illogical jack rabbit.

Just like the "buying and selling" of pro athletes today, it is not the person which is bought or sold, but his debt, or talent, or service. Using your hyper literal standard, Manchester United's management should be in jail for slavery.

#75

secularmerlin

Debates: 0

Posts: 7,093

secularmerlin

03.11.2020 06:48AM

The meaning is determined by the text

Leviticus 25:44-46 New International Version (NIV)
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 bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

I mean I'm trying to understand ethang5 I really am but this is pretty clear in its language and slavery of exactly that kind was extremely prevalent. I understand that you don't like it and would rather believe that it has some deeper meaning that I'm just too dense to understand and I can't rule out the possibility but you've never actually shown me any evidence to consider you have only claimed to be right. That is to say the least unconvincing especially when the text says what the text says.

#76

secularmerlin

Debates: 0

Posts: 7,093

secularmerlin

03.11.2020 06:49AM

You have to at least admit that you could build a case for slavery based on the words of the bible. I agree with you that it would be misguided and wrong to do so but not impossible.

#77

secularmerlin

Debates: 0

Posts: 7,093

secularmerlin

03.11.2020 07:02AM

-->

@ethang5

Slaves for life not for seven years. Own them as property. Bequeath them to your children. Perhaps they believed God really owned them but that is immaterial if they were treated like property. Only other Israelites were to be freed after seven years and only if you don't convince them to just go ahead and ot be freed after all if they used a certain loophole.

#78

ethang5

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875

ethang5

03.11.2020 09:46AM

-->

@secularmerlin

Slaves for life not for seven years.

Only if they agreed to continue as slaves after their debt was paid off.

Own them as property.

Own their debt as property, not their person. The same language is used today in pro soccer.

Bequeath them to your children.

Debt can be bought, sold, or bequeathed. And from previous verses, we know it is debt the bible is talking about.

Perhaps they believed God really owned them but that is immaterial if they were treated like property.

A few people misbehaving do not confirm your argument. They simply were not doing what the bible dictates.

Only other Israelites were to be freed after seven years

The 7 year law did not prohibit freedom for non-israelis. It was to limit indenture. Hardly any master could purchase a debt of more than 2 years, and many non-israeli were also freed in the year of jubelee.

I mention it to show Israeli thinking on the matter of human ownership of humans.

Ephesians 6:9 - And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

#79

secularmerlin

Debates: 0

Posts: 7,093

secularmerlin

03.11.2020 02:14PM

-->

@ethang5

Ephesians 6:9 - And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

Why say masters be nice to your slaves rather than don't own slaves? Unless of course the ownership of slaves is permitted. And without a citation to change my mind I have the understanding that only Jewish slaves were released after seven years and only i . Their family held hostage, they do not agree to have a rather interesting ear piercing and just go ahead and be your slave forever.

#80

ethang5

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875

ethang5

03.11.2020 04:26PM

-->

@secularmerlin

Why say masters be nice to your slaves rather than don't own slaves?

Now watch me answer instead of dodge like you do. Because the bible is not talking about owning people, but indentured servitude, and agreement between the servant and the master. See how easy it is when one's worldview is honest?

Unless of course the ownership of slaves is permitted.

But "slave" didn't mean what you think it means 6,000 years ago junior. Indentured servitude was allowed, owning people was not.

And without a citation to change my mind I have the understanding that only Jewish slaves were released after seven years and only i .

That is a logical fallacy. The law says Jewish slaves had to be released, it does not say non-jewish slaves could not be released.

Their family held hostage, they do not agree to have a rather interesting ear piercing and just go ahead and be your slave forever.

You are misrepresenting the verses. The person had the choice to remain or to leave. In some cases, it was better for the slave to stay, but either way, it was his choice. Proving it was not "slavery" like you want it to be.

Sorry, but you are going to have to hold on to your erroneous view knowing its bogus.

#81

fauxlaw

Debates: 77

Posts: 3,565

fauxlaw

03.11.2020 05:15PM

-->

@ethang5

Then why would God add it in? Thanks for simply answering the question too.

What page, verse, word, did God write of the Bible? Or of any other holy writ, even outside of the Abrahamic religions [Judaism, Christianity, Islam]?

That these works are inspired, even directly revealed from God, is my contention, but they are still written by fallible men. Worse, all have been subjected to transliteration and translation, and not always by well-intended fallible men, but by corrupt, ill-meaning fallible men, and we do not have, at least in any instance of the Abrahamic religions, original texts from which to correct what we have, now.

However, I also contend that we have the power to discern what is and is not true by an exercise of faith, a sincere desire to know, without doubt, and without cynicism, by study and reflection, then ask God.

#82

ethang5

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875

ethang5

03.11.2020 05:19PM

-->

@fauxlaw

None of that will be understood by the atheist.

#83

fauxlaw

Debates: 77

Posts: 3,565

fauxlaw

03.11.2020 05:29PM

-->

@ethang5

Understood as they stand, no, atheists probably will not make the attempt. But, the formula works if applied, even by atheists. If they can express no faith but in themselves, that's a start. It is a personal commitment each must make; no one can or should do it for them.

#84

ludofl3x

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,071

ludofl3x

03.11.2020 05:32PM

-->

@fauxlaw

I also contend that we have the power to discern what is and is not true by an exercise of faith, a sincere desire to know, without doubt, and without cynicism, by study and reflection, then ask God.

Is it fair to say that if something "true", in the biblical sense, that it's true for all people of that particular faith? I guess my question would be why, if a sincere desire to know and a question to god is all that's required to know if it's true in the bible, are there so many disagreements among christians? You, for example, are you not LDS? Beg your pardon if I have the wrong guy, but most Christians look at LDS and think you're an apostate, an aberration. They won't tell you that because they're normally civil people in general, but push comes to shove, they think you're wrong and you're going to be punished for it. Can you know if you're right and they're wrong? I do have some good news for you: as long as there's atheists like me, you'll always be viewed as the lesser of two evils :).

Then I might point out what a terrible idea it is to write a book and never update it if it's meant to apply to all times, but that's another topic!

#85

fauxlaw

Debates: 77

Posts: 3,565

fauxlaw

03.11.2020 05:43PM

-->

@ludofl3x

are you not LDS?

Yes, I am, and am a descendant of Brigham Young through my paternal grandmother; his last surviving granddaughter, who died at 107. No, I have one wife, and she is quite enough! Really, love her to death after 46 years, but, I don't have a clue how Brigham managed 27. Really, most of them did not live in the same house, but, still...

And, yes, I have had those charges made to my face by other Christians, but I don't begrudge anyone who hurls slurs out of ignorance of what I know and believe. Thanks for thinking I'm lesser than other evils. That's a start of a potential good friendship.

#86

oromagi

Debates: 117

Posts: 8,696

oromagi

03.11.2020 11:56PM

-->

@n8nrgmi

so why can i or can't i own slaves, according to the bible?

don't let some old book hold you back... Follow your dream!

#87

EtrnlVw

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,869

EtrnlVw

03.12.2020 08:18PM

-->

@oromagi

don't let some old book hold you back... Follow your dream!

Lol ouch. The problem with some of these old books is that they contain culture, history and archaic thinking, ways of life and opinions. This obviously becomes an issue for some people with a piece of literature which contains a mixture of those elements while at the same time trying to relay spiritual knowledge/information.....who are then unable to distinguish between the two and take away from it what is useful...leave behind what is not.

On the other hand there are people defending the old book who believe it doesn't endorse slavery. I say just use common sense, spirituality is timeless and there are universal principles and even in the Bible there is useful information, a lot of it actually. It's a very deep book when you judge it by it's spiritual side and not necessarily by its cultural side. One is very insightful and beautiful the other is silly and not very applicable.

The question becomes, can you take away anything useful from the Bible? are you willing to absorb the spiritual knowledge in a way where it can have meaning to you personally? and possibly look past the imperfections of such a book?

#88

ethang5

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875

ethang5

03.13.2020 12:50AM

Consider this verse from the King James Bible.

Jas 2:3 - And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool:

I have never known an atheist to claim that this verse, taken at face value, means the man was dressed like a homosexual.

The meaning of "gay" has changed. But the militant, desperate to condemn God, will roll out his obtuse bus only for the word "slave".

I'm surprised they don't also insist that Kunta Kente was a Jewish name!

926 days later

#89

Shila