For example, the quote about slaves in Exodus was not a teaching. Itâs historical context about law at that time. That verse was intended to prevent brutalities towards slaves (which at the time were either hired labourers or in indebted servitude who literally sold themselves to pay off a debt, they were freed or âreleasedâ when the monetary value of their debt was paid off. Itâs not the same as the term for slavery we commonly associate with the it today). The only time a slave was to be beaten was for punishment, like attacking another person, stealing, raping, etc. Itâs not like they had the local Sheriffâs office they could call, so land owners (who were often days away from nearby settlements) would be the legal authority of that area.
The wording that if a slave survives for a day or two was used to determine intent, as it was considered that if someone survives for a couple days after being punished then something else was also the cause of death, and not a direct result of the punishment enacted.
Ultimately the point here is that this isnât a âteachingâ in any way. Some things in the Bible are just historical facts and context.
Timothy 2:12 (I know you mean 1 Timothy even though you didnât specify, because thereâs a 1 Timothy and a 2 Timothy) also needs context, because that scripture is about spiritual matters. Itâs like a chain of command for the purposes of order. This is something that you cannot pull a single scripture out and use only that as an example. There are many other scriptures that expand on this. For example, a man/husband is supposed to treat his wife like his own body and like a âweaker vesselâ (implying a delicate and gentle approach), and anyone who does not hates himself and God.
Corinthians 11:5-6 - (which Corinthians? Thereâs two of them) how is this torture? Itâs just about head coverings, and one thatâs often taken out of context. Verse 11 and 12 say *âBesides, in connection with the Lord, neither is woman separate from man nor is man separate from woman. 12 For just as the woman is from the man, so also the man is through the woman; but all things are from God.â
Verse 15 also says âFor her hair is given to her instead of a coveringâ
Basically neither man or women are better than the other, both are from God and thatâs all that matters.
Titus 2:9-10 - You could literally replace âslaveâ with employee and âmasterâ with boss or CEO, and then no one would say boo. As I mentioned earlier, the term slave is not the dehumanizing one we often use. Its modern counterpart is very close to âemployeeâ.
Colossians 3:22-24, Leviticus 25:44-46, Peter 2:18 - same argument, because the term slave in these verses are not what you are attributing to it.
Edit: clarified about indebted servitude being about paying off a debt
This is probably the worst abuse of the âbut context!â argument I have ever seen. Consideration of context is one thing, but you are just making up a more palatable meaning because thatâs what you want to see. There is no actual context that changes what these verses mean, and your charitable interpretation of the word 'slave" is actually removing the true historical context.
This is probably the worst abuse of the âbut context!â argument I have ever seen.
Context is king.
Consideration of context is one thing, but you are just making up a more palatable meaning because thatâs what you want to see.
Absolutely not. The meaning of a single verse is meaningless without the broader context. Something that says âyou must obey Jesusâ means nothing until you understand *who" Jesus is.
and your charitable interpretation of the word 'slave" is actually removing the true historical context.
I think youâre mis-applying a different historical context.
âBroadly, the Biblical and Talmudic laws tended to consider slavery a form of contract between persons, theoretically reducible to voluntary slavery, unlike chattel slavery, where the enslaved person is legally rendered the personal property (chattel) of the slave owner.â
For example, the quote about slaves in Exodus was not a teaching. Itâs historical context about law at that time. That verse was intended to prevent brutalities towards slaves
Itâs not a teaching, it just explicitly tells people what to do and not to do. Makes sense.
(which at the time were either hired labourers or in indebted servitude who literally sold themselves to pay off a debt, they were freed or âreleasedâ when the monetary value of their debt was paid off. Itâs not the same as the term for slavery we commonly associate with the it today).
Hired laborers and indentured servants whom you could beat and abuse, and had no freedom of their own. Hmm, I wonder if thereâs a word for thatâŠ
The wording that if a slave survives for a day or two was used to determine intent, as it was considered that if someone survives for a couple days after being punished then something else was also the cause of death, and not a direct result of the punishment enacted.
Ultimately the point here is that this isnât a âteachingâ in any way. Some things in the Bible are just historical facts and context.
Itâs not a teaching, it just explicitly tells people what to do and not to do. Makes sense.
Timothy 2:12 (I know you mean 1 Timothy even though you didnât specify, because thereâs a 1 Timothy and a 2 Timothy)
Youâre very clever, congratulations.
also needs context, because that scripture is about spiritual matters. Itâs like a chain of command for the purposes of order. This is something that you cannot pull a single scripture out and use only that as an example. There are many other scriptures that expand on this. For example, a man/husband is supposed to treat his wife like his own body and like a âweaker vesselâ (implying a delicate and gentle approach), and anyone who does not hates himself and God.
You can give all the context you want, thatâs sexism, plain and simple.
Itâs like a chain of command for the purposes of order.
A chain of command you cannot change, that is not based on knowledge or experience, but on whatâs between your legs.
Corinthians 11:5-6 - (which Corinthians? Thereâs two of them)
Or not so clever, I guess.
We have this wonderful new technology called google. Feel free to use it.
Or not, since it was created by the devil of science.
how is this torture? Itâs just about head coverings, and one thatâs often taken out of context. Verse 11 and 12 say *âBesides, in connection with the Lord, neither is woman separate from man nor is man separate from woman. 12 For just as the woman is from the man, so also the man is through the woman; but all things are from God.â
The Bible doesnât teach dominating and torturing people, for one.
Forcing women to shave their heads sure sounds like dominating to meâŠ
Basically neither man or women are better than the other, both are from God and thatâs all that matters.
Men arenât forced to shave their hair, and using your analogy, they are always higheron the chain of command than women.
Titus 2:9-10 - You could literally replace âslaveâ with employee and âmasterâ with boss or CEO, and then no one would say boo. As I mentioned earlier, the term slave is not the dehumanizing one we often use. Its modern counterpart is very close to âemployeeâ.
Except CEOs arenât allowed to beat up employees, and employees are free to leave.
Colossians 3:22-24, Leviticus 25:44-46, Peter 2:18 - same argument, because the term slave in these verses are not what you are attributing to it.
âEmployees, be subject to your CEOs with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse.â
And all of this not even talking about the rampant homophobia, genocide, etc commanded in the bible
âBroadly, the Biblical and Talmudic laws tended to consider slavery a form of contract between persons, theoretically reducible to voluntary slavery, unlike chattel slavery, where the enslaved person is legally rendered the personal property (chattel) of the slave owner.â
âAncient Israelite society allowed slavery; however, total domination of one human being by another was not permitted.[16][17] Rather, slavery in antiquity among the Israelites was closer to what would later be called indentured servitude.[15] Slaves were seen as an essential part of a Hebrew household.[18] In fact, there were cases in which, from a slaveâs point of view, the stability of servitude under a family in which the slave was well-treated would have been preferable to economic freedom.â
âAlthough not prohibited, Jewish ownership of non-Jewish slaves was constrained by Rabbinic authorities since non-Jewish slaves were to be offered conversion to Judaism during their first 12-months term as slaves. If accepted, the slaves were to become Jews, hence redeemed immediately. If rejected, the slaves were to be sold to non-Jewish owners. Accordingly, the Jewish law produced a constant stream of Jewish converts with previous slave experience. Additionally, Jews were required to redeem Jewish slaves from non-Jewish owners, making them a privileged enslavement item, albeit temporary. The combination has made Jews less likely to participate in enslavement and slave trade.â
âThe Torah forbids the return of runaway slaves who escape from their foreign land and their bondage and arrive in the Land of Israel. Furthermore, the Torah demands that such former slaves be treated equally to any other resident alien.â
"Indentured servitude is a form of labor in which a person is contracted to work without salary for a specific number of years. The contract, called an âindentureâ, may be entered âvoluntarilyâ for purported eventual compensation or debt repayment, or it may be imposed âinvoluntarilyâ as a judicial punishment. "
Yes, thereâs a lot more in that Wikipedia page, but Jewish history expands well past the Bible and the 1st century. Iâm just focusing on the Biblical period.
Slavery pre-American colonial settlement is far more nuanced than people realize. Dan Carlinâs Hardcore History podcast goes into immense detail in the Humane Resources episode (and thatâs âhumans as resourcesâ in the title).
You can give all the context you want, thatâs sexism, plain and simple.
Is it though? Because 1 Corinthians says "For just as the woman is from the man, so also the man is through the woman; but all things are from God.â Which is to say neither men or women are above the other, they are equal to God.
A chain of command you cannot change, that is not based on knowledge or experience, but on whatâs between your legs.
True, but an employee at a large company cannot become the CEO (yes, I know itâs âtechnicallyâ possible, but how often does that happen?). I know youâll disagree on this, and thatâs fine, we can disagree. But my position is that this âorderâ isnât oppressive in any way. Thereâs no privilege or power in the role (there isnât supposed to be, but we know that it has been abused countless times). Itâs only meant to be a role to be assign leadership to a clearly defined person in the family. A âleaderâ doesnât control the people they are leading, they simply the person that gives guidance for the group as a whole. Anyways, weâre going to disagree on this.
Or not so clever, I guess.
We have this wonderful new technology called google. Feel free to use it.
I knew which Corinthians was being referenced. I was pointing out that OP keeps referencing scriptures without giving all the details. Which matters because theyâve been touting their expertise and deep knowledge in the topic.
Forcing women to shave their heads sure sounds like dominating to meâŠ
Men arenât forced to shave their hair, and using your analogy, they are always higheron the chain of command than women.
Men (in ancient Israel) are required to do other things, like cut the tip of their genitals off.
Taking a single example is cherry-picking. There are many things that were required of both men and women, and people in all different stations.
Except CEOs arenât allowed to beat up employees, and employees are free to leave.
Because in modern days we have extensive and well established legal codes and policing infrastructures. Back in the Bible on a farm being worked by many people, the closest settlement would have been many hours, if not days away. There was no local police station, no 911 or emergency services. Land owners were thus expected to be the ones enforcing the law on their land. We also have extensive and meticulous laws covering all kinds of topics, scenarios, and conditions that are recorded in explicit detail. Back then most people didnât read, and if they did they definitely didnât have any access to a copy of the law. As such laws were often simple and not complex so that the average person could grasp and remember them.
That being said, slavery in the Bible isnât what you think it is (as I mentioned earlier in my comment). A slave would only receive such punishment if they did something extremely heinous, like murder someone.
âBroadly, the Biblical⊠equally to any other resident alien.â*
What you forgot you mention about the wikipedia page, is that these are not facts, but quotes from a religious scholar.
A religious scholar, who would greatly benefit from people thinking of positively of his religion.
If google puts it on their wikipedia page that them avoiding hundreds of millions in taxes is in context a really good thing, would you believe them?
Slavery pre-American colonial settlement is far more nuanced than people realize.
I donât even need to respond to it, it just speaks for itself.
Is it though?
Yes. Itâs literally âAll of you are equal, some are just more equal than othersâ.
Which is to say neither men or women are above the other, they are equal to God.
Ah, I see. âSeperate but equalâ.
True, but an employee at a large company cannot become the CEO (yes, I know itâs âtechnicallyâ possible, but how often does that happen?).
It is possible, and it does happen.
In fact, every employee can start their own company and become its CEO.
A more apt analogy would be, a company where white people can become managers and C-suite, but black people cannot.
Would you support this?
That being said, slavery in the Bible isnât what you think it is (as I mentioned earlier in my comment). A slave would only receive such punishment if they did something extremely heinous, like murder someone.
âThe condition in which one person is owned as property by another and is under the ownerâs control, especially in involuntary servitude.â
Yep, that fits.
Iâll never understand how people like you can sink to such levels, defending slavery.
A religious scholar, who would greatly benefit from people thinking of positively of his religion.
This assumes all religious scholars have a nefarious agenda. I donât doubt some or many do, but no more so than the final population average. There are many who genuinely want to help others and believe in teaching and sharing peace.
I donât even need to respond to it, it just speaks for itself.
Because you think âslaveryâ means the same thing across all time. That level of willful ignorance speaks for itself also.
Yes. Itâs literally "All of you are equal, some are just more equal than others
No, itâs all are equal but not everyone can have the same job and responsibilities. Not everyone can be the owner of a company (unless youâre WestJet).
Ah, I see. âSeperate but equalâ.
Just âequalâ.
In fact, every employee can start their own company and become its CEO.
I did specify âlarge corporationâ in my example. Thanks for ignoring that.
Yep, that fits.
Involuntary servitude under the law (back in the era weâre talking about) had clear definitions. It was often invoked to collect a debt and could only be held until the debt was paid off, not longer. Captured non-Hebrew enemies were also sometimes put under involuntary servitude. But they were required to either convert, at which point they would be freed. Or else sold off to a non-Hebrew.
Iâll never understand how people like you can sink to such levels, defending slavery.
And Iâll never understand how people can have such reductionist ways of thinking. âSlaveryâ, as itâs used today, is technically âchattel slaveryâ, which is different. They have similar letters in English, but are not the same thing. Some translations even use different terms because the modern English word âslaveryâ has a different meaning. Indentured and voluntary servitude were commonplace back then. Today it isnât. Although the relationship between an employee and employer share many of the same definitions. âSlavesâ under voluntary servitude were even able to âseek a new masterâ. Basically find a new job. Such cruelty.
This assumes all religious scholars have a nefarious agenda. I donât doubt some or many do, but no more so than the final population average. There are many who genuinely want to help others and believe in teaching and sharing peace.
Well, this one clearly does, as heâs trying to whitewash slavery to make his religion look better. Seems pretty nefarious to me.
Because you think âslaveryâ means the same thing across all time
They are ot free to leave, and can be abused by their masters at will. Itâs close enough.
No, itâs all are equal but not everyone can have the same job and responsibilities.
Except the high jobs and high responsiblilities are only available to men.
You know your arguments about this sound familiar to those used by pro-segregationits. I would say something about strange bedfellows, but since youâre agruing for thr same thing, I guess itâs not so strange.
Involuntary servitude
Involuntary servitude
Of course, you forget to mention how none of this forgiveness applies to women, who werenât freed after six years/the debt being paid off, and could instead be forcibly taken as a wife.
And of course slaves taken from neighbouring countries werenât to be returned or freed, they were slaves for life.
âSlavesâ under voluntary servitude were even able to âseek a new masterâ. Basically find a new job.
Voluntary servitude? Maybe.
Were they able to get a new job under involuntary servitude? No. So slavery.
But indentured servitude with physical abuse is still slavery, and the bible supports it. No way around it.
Thereâs a saying that when democracy doesnât favour conservatives, they donât turn from conservatism, theyâll turn on democracy. As it turns out it also applies to christans: when christians find out the bible supports slavery, they donât turn of the bible, instead theyâll start saying slavery was actually good. And lo and beholdâŠ
They are ot free to leave, and can be abused by their masters at will. Itâs close enough.
Laws were in place to prevent abuse. That doesnât mean it didnât happen. Even today (with our laws and ways to monitor and report things) thereâs abuse of literally every kind in every facet of society.
Your premise assumes that slaves in ancient Israel were regularly abused and their masters were harsh and uncaring. Historical accounts say otherwise.
Except the high jobs and high responsiblilities are only available to men.
Itâs not like it comes with more pay like a job. Itâs basically just more work.
You know your arguments about this sound familiar to those used by pro-segregationits.
Because thatâs what youâre choosing to hear. Youâre ignoring all the other things Iâve said.
Were they able to get a new job under involuntary servitude? No.
Obviously not. Just as a prisoner canât just go find a new prison or a criminal go find a more favourable judge. Involuntary servitude was a form of judicial punishment or a result of war.
But indentured servitude with physical abuse is still slavery
Anything with abuse is abuse and is abhorrent. The Bible says as much.
and the bible supports it.
No, the Bible records it. The Bible also places a huge emphasis on showing love to your neighbour and your enemy. To the point that itâs considered a core teaching of Jesus.
1 Thessalonians 5:15Â - âSee that no one repays injury for injury to anyone, but always pursue what is good toward one another and to all others.â
Treat everyone well
Exodus 20:10 - âbut the seventh day is a sabbath to Jehovah your God. You must not do any work, neither you nor your son nor your daughter nor your slave man nor your slave girl nor your domestic animal nor your foreign resident who is inside your settlements.â
Workers/slaves should not be overworked.
Exodus 21:12 - âAnyone who strikes a man so that he dies must be put to death.â
Exodus 21:16 - âIf anyone kidnaps a man and sells him or is caught holding him, he must be put to death.â
Exodus 21:26,27 - âIf a man strikes the eye of his slave man or the eye of his slave girl and he destroys it, he is to let the slave go free in compensation for his eye. 27 And if he knocks out the tooth of his slave man or of his slave girl, he is to let the slave go free in compensation for his tooth.â
Physical abuse resulted in the slave being released.
instead theyâll start saying slavery was actually good.
No one here ever said slavery of any kind was good. Not in the slightest. You might be confusing your preconceptions for something I said.
You really should listen to Dan Carlinâs podcasts. (Even if itâs not for the sake of this discussion, his content is unmatched)
I really donât care about your religious podcast, especially one that tries to whitewash slavery.
Itâs not like it comes with more pay like a job. Itâs basically just more work.
It does come with pay, as well and power and influence.
Because thatâs what youâre choosing to hear. Youâre ignoring all the other things Iâve said.
Iâm hearing reality and ignoring the delusional falsehoods youâre saying, yes.
Youâre also ignoring the part where women slaves could be forced to marry their masters, where men could not.
But they were completely equal, right?
Anything with abuse is abuse and is abhorrent. The Bible says as much.
I didnât say that for the part where it says how you can beat your slave.
It didnât say that for the part about dashing babies into rocks.
It didnât say that for child murder.
No, the Bible records it. The Bible also places a huge emphasis on showing love to your neighbour and your enemy.
Oh, I see. When something supports agenda then itâs the bibleâs core message, but when something doesnât look to good for it, then itâs just recorded in it, and also out of context.
How convenient.
If you havenât noticed, the bible frequently contradicts itself.
No one here ever said slavery of any kind was good. Not in the slightest. You might be confusing your preconceptions for something I said.
I really donât care about your religious podcast, especially one that tries to whitewash slavery.
LMAO! Dan Carlin is far from religious, and the last thing he does is whitewash anything. In fact, the stuff he talks about is blood curdling and may even make you vomit everywhere.
Edit: Iâm still reeling with laughter at the absurdity at calling Dan Carlinâs podcast âreligiousâ and his content âwhitewashingâ.
It does come with pay, as well and power and influence.
If youâre referring to those mega churches and people like the Duggars, then ya. I agree with you there and agree thatâs wrong.
I didnât say that for the part where it says how you can beat your slave.
You know well that this is about judicial punishment. If a slave murders someone, for example
It didnât say that for the part about dashing babies into rocks.
Psalms 137:9 is talking about Babylon the Great, which represents false religion. And her âchildrenâ are the terrible things she does.
Oh, I see. When something supports agenda then itâs the bibleâs core message, but when something doesnât look to good for it, then itâs just recorded in it, and also out of context.
No. Itâs a reality and a fact that not every single word in the Bible is a commandment. There has to be context and even just basic information about events, people, cultures, etc.
Huh, so this wasnât a quote used by you?
Is it a good thing that people go on welfare, or is it preferable to starving? Again, this is where we get into the definition of the word. Think about it, how would it be preferable to be mistreated, beaten, and abused?
Youâre cherry picking without context.
For example, the quote about slaves in Exodus was not a teaching. Itâs historical context about law at that time. That verse was intended to prevent brutalities towards slaves (which at the time were either hired labourers or in indebted servitude who literally sold themselves to pay off a debt, they were freed or âreleasedâ when the monetary value of their debt was paid off. Itâs not the same as the term for slavery we commonly associate with the it today). The only time a slave was to be beaten was for punishment, like attacking another person, stealing, raping, etc. Itâs not like they had the local Sheriffâs office they could call, so land owners (who were often days away from nearby settlements) would be the legal authority of that area.
The wording that if a slave survives for a day or two was used to determine intent, as it was considered that if someone survives for a couple days after being punished then something else was also the cause of death, and not a direct result of the punishment enacted.
Ultimately the point here is that this isnât a âteachingâ in any way. Some things in the Bible are just historical facts and context.
Timothy 2:12 (I know you mean 1 Timothy even though you didnât specify, because thereâs a 1 Timothy and a 2 Timothy) also needs context, because that scripture is about spiritual matters. Itâs like a chain of command for the purposes of order. This is something that you cannot pull a single scripture out and use only that as an example. There are many other scriptures that expand on this. For example, a man/husband is supposed to treat his wife like his own body and like a âweaker vesselâ (implying a delicate and gentle approach), and anyone who does not hates himself and God.
Corinthians 11:5-6 - (which Corinthians? Thereâs two of them) how is this torture? Itâs just about head coverings, and one thatâs often taken out of context. Verse 11 and 12 say *âBesides, in connection with the Lord, neither is woman separate from man nor is man separate from woman. 12 For just as the woman is from the man, so also the man is through the woman; but all things are from God.â
Verse 15 also says âFor her hair is given to her instead of a coveringâ
Basically neither man or women are better than the other, both are from God and thatâs all that matters.
Titus 2:9-10 - You could literally replace âslaveâ with employee and âmasterâ with boss or CEO, and then no one would say boo. As I mentioned earlier, the term slave is not the dehumanizing one we often use. Its modern counterpart is very close to âemployeeâ.
Colossians 3:22-24, Leviticus 25:44-46, Peter 2:18 - same argument, because the term slave in these verses are not what you are attributing to it.
Edit: clarified about indebted servitude being about paying off a debt
This is probably the worst abuse of the âbut context!â argument I have ever seen. Consideration of context is one thing, but you are just making up a more palatable meaning because thatâs what you want to see. There is no actual context that changes what these verses mean, and your charitable interpretation of the word 'slave" is actually removing the true historical context.
Context is king.
Absolutely not. The meaning of a single verse is meaningless without the broader context. Something that says âyou must obey Jesusâ means nothing until you understand *who" Jesus is.
I think youâre mis-applying a different historical context.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_slavery
âBroadly, the Biblical and Talmudic laws tended to consider slavery a form of contract between persons, theoretically reducible to voluntary slavery, unlike chattel slavery, where the enslaved person is legally rendered the personal property (chattel) of the slave owner.â
Itâs not a teaching, it just explicitly tells people what to do and not to do. Makes sense.
Hired laborers and indentured servants whom you could beat and abuse, and had no freedom of their own. Hmm, I wonder if thereâs a word for thatâŠ
The wording that if a slave survives for a day or two was used to determine intent, as it was considered that if someone survives for a couple days after being punished then something else was also the cause of death, and not a direct result of the punishment enacted.
Itâs not a teaching, it just explicitly tells people what to do and not to do. Makes sense.
Youâre very clever, congratulations.
You can give all the context you want, thatâs sexism, plain and simple.
A chain of command you cannot change, that is not based on knowledge or experience, but on whatâs between your legs.
Or not so clever, I guess.
We have this wonderful new technology called google. Feel free to use it.
Or not, since it was created by the devil of science.
Forcing women to shave their heads sure sounds like dominating to meâŠ
Men arenât forced to shave their hair, and using your analogy, they are always higheron the chain of command than women.
Except CEOs arenât allowed to beat up employees, and employees are free to leave.
âEmployees, be subject to your CEOs with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse.â
And all of this not even talking about the rampant homophobia, genocide, etc commanded in the bible
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_slavery
âBroadly, the Biblical and Talmudic laws tended to consider slavery a form of contract between persons, theoretically reducible to voluntary slavery, unlike chattel slavery, where the enslaved person is legally rendered the personal property (chattel) of the slave owner.â
âAncient Israelite society allowed slavery; however, total domination of one human being by another was not permitted.[16][17] Rather, slavery in antiquity among the Israelites was closer to what would later be called indentured servitude.[15] Slaves were seen as an essential part of a Hebrew household.[18] In fact, there were cases in which, from a slaveâs point of view, the stability of servitude under a family in which the slave was well-treated would have been preferable to economic freedom.â
âAlthough not prohibited, Jewish ownership of non-Jewish slaves was constrained by Rabbinic authorities since non-Jewish slaves were to be offered conversion to Judaism during their first 12-months term as slaves. If accepted, the slaves were to become Jews, hence redeemed immediately. If rejected, the slaves were to be sold to non-Jewish owners. Accordingly, the Jewish law produced a constant stream of Jewish converts with previous slave experience. Additionally, Jews were required to redeem Jewish slaves from non-Jewish owners, making them a privileged enslavement item, albeit temporary. The combination has made Jews less likely to participate in enslavement and slave trade.â
âThe Torah forbids the return of runaway slaves who escape from their foreign land and their bondage and arrive in the Land of Israel. Furthermore, the Torah demands that such former slaves be treated equally to any other resident alien.â
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servitude
"Indentured servitude is a form of labor in which a person is contracted to work without salary for a specific number of years. The contract, called an âindentureâ, may be entered âvoluntarilyâ for purported eventual compensation or debt repayment, or it may be imposed âinvoluntarilyâ as a judicial punishment. "
Yes, thereâs a lot more in that Wikipedia page, but Jewish history expands well past the Bible and the 1st century. Iâm just focusing on the Biblical period.
Slavery pre-American colonial settlement is far more nuanced than people realize. Dan Carlinâs Hardcore History podcast goes into immense detail in the Humane Resources episode (and thatâs âhumans as resourcesâ in the title).
Is it though? Because 1 Corinthians says "For just as the woman is from the man, so also the man is through the woman; but all things are from God.â Which is to say neither men or women are above the other, they are equal to God.
True, but an employee at a large company cannot become the CEO (yes, I know itâs âtechnicallyâ possible, but how often does that happen?). I know youâll disagree on this, and thatâs fine, we can disagree. But my position is that this âorderâ isnât oppressive in any way. Thereâs no privilege or power in the role (there isnât supposed to be, but we know that it has been abused countless times). Itâs only meant to be a role to be assign leadership to a clearly defined person in the family. A âleaderâ doesnât control the people they are leading, they simply the person that gives guidance for the group as a whole. Anyways, weâre going to disagree on this.
I knew which Corinthians was being referenced. I was pointing out that OP keeps referencing scriptures without giving all the details. Which matters because theyâve been touting their expertise and deep knowledge in the topic.
Men (in ancient Israel) are required to do other things, like cut the tip of their genitals off.
Taking a single example is cherry-picking. There are many things that were required of both men and women, and people in all different stations.
Because in modern days we have extensive and well established legal codes and policing infrastructures. Back in the Bible on a farm being worked by many people, the closest settlement would have been many hours, if not days away. There was no local police station, no 911 or emergency services. Land owners were thus expected to be the ones enforcing the law on their land. We also have extensive and meticulous laws covering all kinds of topics, scenarios, and conditions that are recorded in explicit detail. Back then most people didnât read, and if they did they definitely didnât have any access to a copy of the law. As such laws were often simple and not complex so that the average person could grasp and remember them.
That being said, slavery in the Bible isnât what you think it is (as I mentioned earlier in my comment). A slave would only receive such punishment if they did something extremely heinous, like murder someone.
Edit: formatting, clarification
What you forgot you mention about the wikipedia page, is that these are not facts, but quotes from a religious scholar.
A religious scholar, who would greatly benefit from people thinking of positively of his religion.
If google puts it on their wikipedia page that them avoiding hundreds of millions in taxes is in context a really good thing, would you believe them?
I donât even need to respond to it, it just speaks for itself.
Yes. Itâs literally âAll of you are equal, some are just more equal than othersâ.
Ah, I see. âSeperate but equalâ.
It is possible, and it does happen.
In fact, every employee can start their own company and become its CEO.
A more apt analogy would be, a company where white people can become managers and C-suite, but black people cannot.
Would you support this?
âThe condition in which one person is owned as property by another and is under the ownerâs control, especially in involuntary servitude.â
Yep, that fits.
Iâll never understand how people like you can sink to such levels, defending slavery.
And again, the rampant homophobia.
This assumes all religious scholars have a nefarious agenda. I donât doubt some or many do, but no more so than the final population average. There are many who genuinely want to help others and believe in teaching and sharing peace.
Because you think âslaveryâ means the same thing across all time. That level of willful ignorance speaks for itself also.
No, itâs all are equal but not everyone can have the same job and responsibilities. Not everyone can be the owner of a company (unless youâre WestJet).
Just âequalâ.
I did specify âlarge corporationâ in my example. Thanks for ignoring that.
Involuntary servitude under the law (back in the era weâre talking about) had clear definitions. It was often invoked to collect a debt and could only be held until the debt was paid off, not longer. Captured non-Hebrew enemies were also sometimes put under involuntary servitude. But they were required to either convert, at which point they would be freed. Or else sold off to a non-Hebrew.
And Iâll never understand how people can have such reductionist ways of thinking. âSlaveryâ, as itâs used today, is technically âchattel slaveryâ, which is different. They have similar letters in English, but are not the same thing. Some translations even use different terms because the modern English word âslaveryâ has a different meaning. Indentured and voluntary servitude were commonplace back then. Today it isnât. Although the relationship between an employee and employer share many of the same definitions. âSlavesâ under voluntary servitude were even able to âseek a new masterâ. Basically find a new job. Such cruelty.
Well, this one clearly does, as heâs trying to whitewash slavery to make his religion look better. Seems pretty nefarious to me.
They are ot free to leave, and can be abused by their masters at will. Itâs close enough.
Except the high jobs and high responsiblilities are only available to men.
You know your arguments about this sound familiar to those used by pro-segregationits. I would say something about strange bedfellows, but since youâre agruing for thr same thing, I guess itâs not so strange.
Of course, you forget to mention how none of this forgiveness applies to women, who werenât freed after six years/the debt being paid off, and could instead be forcibly taken as a wife.
And of course slaves taken from neighbouring countries werenât to be returned or freed, they were slaves for life.
Voluntary servitude? Maybe.
Were they able to get a new job under involuntary servitude? No. So slavery.
But indentured servitude with physical abuse is still slavery, and the bible supports it. No way around it.
Thereâs a saying that when democracy doesnât favour conservatives, they donât turn from conservatism, theyâll turn on democracy. As it turns out it also applies to christans: when christians find out the bible supports slavery, they donât turn of the bible, instead theyâll start saying slavery was actually good. And lo and beholdâŠ
And of course the rampant homophobia.
You really should listen to Dan Carlinâs podcasts. (Even if itâs not for the sake of this discussion, his content is unmatched)
https://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-68-blitz-human-resources/
Laws were in place to prevent abuse. That doesnât mean it didnât happen. Even today (with our laws and ways to monitor and report things) thereâs abuse of literally every kind in every facet of society.
Your premise assumes that slaves in ancient Israel were regularly abused and their masters were harsh and uncaring. Historical accounts say otherwise.
Itâs not like it comes with more pay like a job. Itâs basically just more work.
Because thatâs what youâre choosing to hear. Youâre ignoring all the other things Iâve said.
Obviously not. Just as a prisoner canât just go find a new prison or a criminal go find a more favourable judge. Involuntary servitude was a form of judicial punishment or a result of war.
Anything with abuse is abuse and is abhorrent. The Bible says as much.
No, the Bible records it. The Bible also places a huge emphasis on showing love to your neighbour and your enemy. To the point that itâs considered a core teaching of Jesus.
1 Thessalonians 5:15Â - âSee that no one repays injury for injury to anyone, but always pursue what is good toward one another and to all others.â
Treat everyone well
Exodus 20:10 - âbut the seventh day is a sabbath to Jehovah your God. You must not do any work, neither you nor your son nor your daughter nor your slave man nor your slave girl nor your domestic animal nor your foreign resident who is inside your settlements.â
Workers/slaves should not be overworked.
Exodus 21:12 - âAnyone who strikes a man so that he dies must be put to death.â
Exodus 21:16 - âIf anyone kidnaps a man and sells him or is caught holding him, he must be put to death.â
Exodus 21:26,27 - âIf a man strikes the eye of his slave man or the eye of his slave girl and he destroys it, he is to let the slave go free in compensation for his eye. 27 And if he knocks out the tooth of his slave man or of his slave girl, he is to let the slave go free in compensation for his tooth.â
Physical abuse resulted in the slave being released.
No one here ever said slavery of any kind was good. Not in the slightest. You might be confusing your preconceptions for something I said.
I really donât care about your religious podcast, especially one that tries to whitewash slavery.
It does come with pay, as well and power and influence.
Iâm hearing reality and ignoring the delusional falsehoods youâre saying, yes.
Youâre also ignoring the part where women slaves could be forced to marry their masters, where men could not.
But they were completely equal, right?
I didnât say that for the part where it says how you can beat your slave.
It didnât say that for the part about dashing babies into rocks.
It didnât say that for child murder.
Oh, I see. When something supports agenda then itâs the bibleâs core message, but when something doesnât look to good for it, then itâs just recorded in it, and also out of context.
How convenient.
If you havenât noticed, the bible frequently contradicts itself.
Huh, so this wasnât a quote used by you?
âIn fact, there were cases in which, from a slaveâs point of view, the stability of servitude under a family in which the slave was well-treated would have been preferable to economic freedom.â
LMAO! Dan Carlin is far from religious, and the last thing he does is whitewash anything. In fact, the stuff he talks about is blood curdling and may even make you vomit everywhere.
Edit: Iâm still reeling with laughter at the absurdity at calling Dan Carlinâs podcast âreligiousâ and his content âwhitewashingâ.
If youâre referring to those mega churches and people like the Duggars, then ya. I agree with you there and agree thatâs wrong.
You know well that this is about judicial punishment. If a slave murders someone, for example
Psalms 137:9 is talking about Babylon the Great, which represents false religion. And her âchildrenâ are the terrible things she does.
No. Itâs a reality and a fact that not every single word in the Bible is a commandment. There has to be context and even just basic information about events, people, cultures, etc.
Is it a good thing that people go on welfare, or is it preferable to starving? Again, this is where we get into the definition of the word. Think about it, how would it be preferable to be mistreated, beaten, and abused?