Religious Slavery

[Spiked Blood]

Really I'm just looking for a scripture. If one of the nice religious folk that visit this 'ere establishment can direct me to the scripture in the old testament( I think it might be Exodus), that states its ok to beat your slave, just don't kill him.

Just helping me find a scripture is a waste of a topic. There are lots of bible characters that are complicit with the act of keping slaves. In many instances the bible condones slavery(among other very vile things). How can you maintain the bible is gods word when it contains such brutal violations of humanity?

[Freddy]

I Googled (Bible slavery beating) and instantly found this.

"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property." (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

I and countless others have been asking that very question. Usually, slavery was condoned by humans back then so they needed rules. Do not expect to get a religious person to say God was wrong on slavery, because in their eyes God can never be wrong. You could argue that humans needed to justify slavery by making it a God sanctified institution.

[Dyothelite]

When studying the Bible academically you have to take into account the who? why? where? when? how? and what context it was written in.

Without those you end up preaching. The passages you are refering to are mostly in the Torah (the first five books of the Bible) which contain 3000 years old Jewish social and moral laws, including the Kosher (ancient Jewish FDA) and religious prtactice laws.

Without boring you with a biblical lesson....could you be more specific on what you want me to find in there for ya....its mt specialty.

Even the ten commandmewnts have weird subclauses about servants in the Hebrew versions.

[Edella]

Originally Posted by Dyothelite

When studying the Bible academically you have to take into account the who? why? where? when? how? and what context it was written in.

Regardless of context,slavery ignores fundamental human rights.The fact that nowhere does the God of the bible explicitly denounce slavery as wrong is an unacceptable omission. For an all loving God to omit the fundamental right to be free in His Moral Law is truly mind-boggling.

Originally Posted by Dyothelite

The passages you are refering to are mostly in the Torah (the first five books of the Bible) which contain 3000 years old Jewish social and moral laws, including the Kosher (ancient Jewish FDA) and religious prtactice laws

....including ridiculously precise details about how to build the tabernacle, how to clothe the priests, how to butcher animals for sacrifice and how to burn incense to him...

Some think that Jesus would have a different view of slavery, but slavery is still approved of in the New Testament...
6:5 Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Ephesians 6:5 KJV

Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. 1 Tim.6:1 KJV

[Dyothelite]

Yeah see that's kinda my point too many people take the Bible literally and overlook context.

This is a good example:http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=...er=20&verse=17

The tenth commandment has a subclause for your slave in it. it is usually written as servant, but it is considered property. Look at the definition in that same page for the words servant or maid servant:

http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=05650

The Torah has rules when you can sell your daughter into slavery, or beat her, when to sacrifice an ox, and people even pull out of that a rule of homosexuality.

All of these books (pentateuch- Torah) were written for one purpose. After Moses led the Jews from Egypt out of slavery they settled in the Middle East then in 586 BCE they were enslaved again by the Babylonians. With no homeland and no social structure they complied the Torah as a way to keep their culture together no matter where they were enslaved or spread out. It was an attempt to keep their rich traditions referenceable. It's a large history book, that would stay in tact even if the Jews were separated.

With that said you have to realize the historical context of the words in order to understand the Bible. You can't just pull a quote out of Levititcus and say something like "see... God says homosexuality is wrong", without giving the whole context of Leviticus. For example the Kosher laws were merely health codes. Times have changed since refrigeration.... haha

Times change and with it our religious values must also reflect our cultural ones. Jesus was a pioneer in changing social values...ie. womens rights, economic issues. He sought to update the law of Moses, showing that there is always room for social improvement and change.

[Dyothelite]

Originally Posted by Edella

Some think that Jesus would have a different view of slavery, but slavery is still approved of in the New Testament...
6:5 Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Ephesians 6:5 KJV

Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. 1 Tim.6:1 KJV

Don't mean to be picky here but the verses you cited were not Jesus's words they were written by others to specific cities during the formation of the church.

Where I'll agree this is reflective of backwards social values, I don't think Jesus would have advocated slavery directly.

[HydrogenBond]

One can not apply 20/20 hindsight to another time in history, since the times were different then. For example, the Jews were enslaved to the Egyptians during the time of Moses. This gave the Egyptians an excellent work force, while allowing the Jews to assimulate this higher culture. Eventually, they went on strike, left Egypt, and began their own culture. They were much better off after a few hundred years of schooling.

This is very controversial, but the data speaks for itself. The descendants of the Africian slaves, especially in the highest culures, like England, US, France, etc., are much better off and advanced than the descendants of those who were left behind in Africa. I am not pro-slavery, but the data does say that forced training can be progressive over the long term.

A good analogy is a child living with their parents. This can be a type of slave labor if chores are traded in exchange for room and board. Even if the child isn't taught directly, they will assimulate their parents environment, making them better able to become adults, than if they were left in the wild with only children. "you are grounded (confined to quarters) due to too much immature play"

[Edella]

Again,I would like to point out that nowhere in The Bible is slavery unambiguously condemned.If one believes that God has given us a complete code of morals to live by(many do),why didn't God flat -out say slavery is wrong? It would have made for a good commandment:Thou shalt not own another human being.

Originally Posted by Dyothelite

With that said you have to realize the historical context of the words in order to understand the Bible. You can't just pull a quote out of Levititcus and say something like "see... God says homosexuality is wrong", without giving the whole context of Leviticus.

I Think you're probably referring to Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

I know you have warned against taking Scripture out of context,but how can this be taken to be anything but a call to kill homosexuals?What do you think it means?

Originally Posted by Dyothelite

For example the Kosher laws were merely health codes. Times have changed since refrigeration.... haha

Health is not the only reason for Jewish dietary laws. Many of the laws of kashrut have no known connection with health. To my knowledge , there is no reason why camel or rabbit meat (both treyf) is any less healthy than cow or goat meat. Also, some of the health benefits to be derived from kashrut were not made obsolete by the refrigerator. For example, there is some evidence that eating meat and dairy together interferes with digestion, and no food preparation technique reproduces the health benefit of the kosher law of eating them separately.

[Dyothelite]

Originally Posted by Edella

Again,I would like to point out that nowhere in The Bible is slavery unambiguously condemned.If one believes that God has given us a complete code of morals to live by(many do),why didn't God flat -out say slavery is wrong? It would have made for a good commandment:Thou shalt not own another human being.


I Think you're probably referring to Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

I know you have warned against taking Scripture out of context,but how can this be taken to be anything but a call to kill homosexuals?What do you think it means?

Health is not the only reason for Jewish dietary laws. Many of the laws of kashrut have no known connection with health. To my knowledge , there is no reason why camel or rabbit meat (both treyf) is any less healthy than cow or goat meat. Also, some of the health benefits to be derived from kashrut were not made obsolete by the refrigerator. For example, there is some evidence that eating meat and dairy together interferes with digestion, and no food preparation technique reproduces the health benefit of the kosher law of eating them separately.

Yeah my point in bringing up the homosexuality law was this. It's easy to pull that scripture and say the Bible says this.... but they'lll leave out the scoial context and the other laws on that same page about selling your daughter into slavery etc etc. The only real thing I would say about that specifically is that you can't use Leviticus to prove a social claim without acknowledging that the scripture came from a distant social environment.

I think my overall point is alot of what is written in the Torah is totally reflective of the social and cultural tones of the environment it was written in. Slavery wasn't condemned by man until the Civil War practically.

And yeah I know the Kosher laws have deeper meanings I was just kinda using that as an example of changes in culture. (Don't mix your salt preserved meat in your milk because the salt will curdle the milk).

The final statement I'll make concerning this issue is that I feel this the real threat to scoiety and freedom....religious fundamentalism. muslim, christian etc etc. Taking scripture too literally might make you wanna start a war.

[HydrogenBond]

Many of the original Kosher laws appeared to have a common sense to them, at least for that time. For example, not eating shell fish made sense. It was hot and shell fish, if left even a few hour in the heat, can become dangerous the health. Not eating animals with cloven hoofs like, pigs, made sense, in that people probablly liked their meat in the rare side, i.e, cook the whole pig. Pig needs to be cooked through but if rare was preferred by some many could be put to risk. Homosexuality, if you think about it, is very unsanitary without condoms, especially at a time when people did not bath that often. I could see e-coli spreading through oral sex, or diseases waiting to form that could be passed on. If AIDS had formed them, the Jews may have gone extinct.

Nowadays with have refrigeration for shellfish, we know enough to cook pork to kill parasites and sanitary precautions can limited the unhealthy affects of of unsanitary homosexulaity. But good rational advice, at one time, often turns into subjective traditions as time goes by, that are followed blindly.