Using the Bible as an excuse for bigotry

[Spud]

In an earlier post you said God created them good. How then did they choose the evil option?

I think it is possible to answer this, because Jesus was tempted in the same way that we are.

[Roses]

I think it is possible to answer this, because Jesus was tempted in the same way that we are.

Spud we have no idea if what the gospels claim about Jesus is truth or fiction. Much of it is fiction, imo.

[Spud]

Picking out the nasty bits of what is supposed to be a moral guideline inspired/written by a perfect being is not 'bigotry', it's pointing out the inherent flaws in what's supposed to be the greatest work of morality in existence.

Quoting out of context?  What's the context where 'take the women of your fallen enemies for your own' is acceptable?  What's the context where any treatise on how to treat a slave that doesn't include 'don't keep slaves' is acceptable?

As to ignoring 'the good bits', the whole thing is an attempt for to justify the jealous bloodthirstiness of a bronze age myth in order to justify maintaining a pretense of relevance in the modern world - what are the 'good bits'? Are they the bits that everyone in pretty much every decent moral philosophy has emphasised, both before these pieces got written or aggregated? The 'golden rule' of 'don't be a dick'?

O.

Your reference to how to treat a slave is I think from exodus 21:20. This passage assumes that somebody has a servant, for whatever reason. It's assuming that the servant is valued by him, since he paid for him/her, and thus would ordinarily treat them well, and that occasionally they might need to discipline them. Note also that the pre-slave trade version of the Bible, the KJV, doesn't use the word slave at all, it's nearly always servant, and occasionally bondman if referring to a servant bought from a neighbouring country, cf Leviticus 25:39-46. In Exodus 21:20 the word should be translated servant. In the Leviticus passage there is a contrast between an Israelite who, due to poverty, has sold himself to a fellow Israelite. That person is to be treated like a hired worker, in contrast with the person bought from abroad as a servant (bondman/maid).

The women taken as wives from defeated enemies may be in the situation where they have no husband to look after them, and so it could have been advantageous for them to be taken as wives for Israelites. The passage assumes they will be treated well, and the overall context in both these cases is the Sabbath commandment, which applies to foreigners living among the people as well, so that they would have a day's rest.

[Roses]

Your reference to how to treat a slave is I think from exodus 21:20. This passage assumes that somebody has a servant, for whatever reason. It's assuming that the servant is valued by him, since he paid for him/her, and thus would ordinarily treat them well, and that occasionally they might need to discipline them. Note also that the pre-slave trade version of the Bible, the KJV, doesn't use the word slave at all, it's nearly always servant, and occasionally bondman if referring to a servant bought from a neighbouring country, cf Leviticus 25:39-46. In Exodus 21:20 the word should be translated servant. In the Leviticus passage there is a contrast between an Israelite who, due to poverty, has sold himself to a fellow Israelite. That person is to be treated like a hired worker, in contrast with the person bought from abroad as a servant (bondman/maid).

The women taken as wives from defeated enemies may be in the situation where they have no husband to look after them, and so it could have been advantageous for them to be taken as wives for Israelites. The passage assumes they will be treated well, and the overall context in both these cases is the Sabbath commandment, which applies to foreigners living among the people as well, so that they would have a day's rest.

You keep making excuses for the behaviour of the evil god character and its acolytes.

[Spud]

Insofar as the story of Adam and Eve's 'sin' is never again referred to in the Old Testament, it does seem extraordinary that the Christians made so much of it. I say 'Christians' - of course, it was really all down to St Paul, who first adumbrated the idea - which then filtered into the later Christian scriptures.

Paul said, "Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people." Romans 5:18
That's why Adam's 'fall' is brought into focus by Paul after centuries of it not being mentioned.

[Spud]

It is odd that you can't see an evolution of morality between, say, Numbers 31 and the 1st and 2nd chapters of Isaiah.
Numbers 31 was much worse than that: it was an injunction to take young girl virgins and rape them (meanwhile killing off all men women and boys). As I say, the morality changes and evolves from prophet to prophet. Stop looking at the Bible as a single book (fundamentalist trait) and realise it's a library.

Can you explain what you see is the difference between Numbers 31 (defeat of Midianites because they enticed Israel into idolatry) and Isaiah 1 and 2 (given Isaiah 3 in which God will bring defeat upon Judah as punishment for idolatry and corruption).

[jeremyp]

I think it is possible to answer this, because Jesus was tempted in the same way that we are.

Go on then: answer it.

[jeremyp]

Your reference to how to treat a slave is I think from exodus 21:20. This passage assumes that somebody has a servant, for whatever reason. It's assuming that the servant is valued by him, since he paid for him/her, and thus would ordinarily treat them well, and that occasionally they might need to discipline them. Note also that the pre-slave trade version of the Bible, the KJV, doesn't use the word slave at all, it's nearly always servant, and occasionally bondman if referring to a servant bought from a neighbouring country, cf Leviticus 25:39-46. In Exodus 21:20 the word should be translated servant. In the Leviticus passage there is a contrast between an Israelite who, due to poverty, has sold himself to a fellow Israelite. That person is to be treated like a hired worker, in contrast with the person bought from abroad as a servant (bondman/maid).

The women taken as wives from defeated enemies may be in the situation where they have no husband to look after them, and so it could have been advantageous for them to be taken as wives for Israelites. The passage assumes they will be treated well, and the overall context in both these cases is the Sabbath commandment, which applies to foreigners living among the people as well, so that they would have a day's rest.

You know the KJV is just one translation and not a particularly good one.  We are definitely talking about slaves as far as the foreigners are concerned.

Also, you need to consider why the women had no husbands.

[Spud]

You know the KJV is just one translation and not a particularly good one.  We are definitely talking about slaves as far as the foreigners are concerned.

Let's look at the Hebrew and the context, then.

There is only one Hebrew word for someone who is serving someone else (ebed). It's contrasted with hired worker in Lev. 25:40. This suggests that if there was one word that would fit all instances it would be servant, rather than slave. One form of this word, 'abed', occurs 6 times. Two of these are in Genesis 44 where Joseph tells his brothers that the one who is found to have Joseph's cup will become his servant. So the context here is that Benjamin would be put to work because he had done something wrong. Most people would agree that this sort of forced service in itself is not morally wrong, but right. Compare with forcing a criminal to do community service.
In 1 Kings 9:22, 'abed' is again used when Solomon imposes forced service onto the remaining Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites who were still living in Israel. In this instance again, the word is used of people descended from the corrupt peoples of Canaan.
In Proverbs 29:19 it is used for a servant who won't be corrected by words alone. Someone might say this is morally wrong, but four verses previously it mentions disciplining a child by physical means, implying that it is sometimes appropriate to discipline someone physically if they are doing something wrong.

The context in Leviticus 25:39-46 is that it's contrasting people who are bought temporarily (fellow Israelites) with people who are bought as permanent property (only foreigners). Note that it's about purchasing a servant. It's not kidnapping a person in order to force them to work or sell them, which was a capital offence (Ex 21:16). It is assumed, since this is written for legal purposes, that because the buyer is investing his wealth, for that reason he will treat the servant well. (This is the implied meaning of Exodus 21:21 "for he is his money"; likewise a girl who is raped in the countryside is assumed to have cried for help, see Dt 22:27 "For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her".)

It's worth noting also that in Lev 25:42 Israelite servants are referred to as Yahweh's servants, implying that foreign ones are not. Could this mean that for a foreigner to become the servant of an Israelite would indirectly make him Yahweh's servant?

Also, you need to consider why the women had no husbands.

Again, this was a case of punishment for wrongdoing (by the Midianites), and cannot be dismissed as rape or whatever.

[Roses]

Let's look at the Hebrew and the context, then.

There is only one Hebrew word for someone who is serving someone else (ebed). It's contrasted with hired worker in Lev. 25:40. This suggests that if there was one word that would fit all instances it would be servant, rather than slave. One form of this word, 'abed', occurs 6 times. Two of these are in Genesis 44 where Joseph tells his brothers that the one who is found to have Joseph's cup will become his servant. So the context here is that Benjamin would be put to work because he had done something wrong. Most people would agree that this sort of forced service in itself is not morally wrong, but right. Compare with forcing a criminal to do community service.
In 1 Kings 9:22, 'abed' is again used when Solomon imposes forced service onto the remaining Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites who were still living in Israel. In this instance again, the word is used of people descended from the corrupt peoples of Canaan.
In Proverbs 29:19 it is used for a servant who won't be corrected by words alone. Someone might say this is morally wrong, but four verses previously it mentions disciplining a child by physical means, implying that it is sometimes appropriate to discipline someone physically if they are doing something wrong.

The context in Leviticus 25:39-46 is that it's contrasting people who are bought temporarily (fellow Israelites) with people who are bought as permanent property (only foreigners). Note that it's about purchasing a servant. It's not kidnapping a person in order to force them to work or sell them, which was a capital offence (Ex 21:16). It is assumed, since this is written for legal purposes, that because the buyer is investing his wealth, for that reason he will treat the servant well. (This is the implied meaning of Exodus 21:21 "for he is his money"; likewise a girl who is raped in the countryside is assumed to have cried for help, see Dt 22:27 "For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her".)

It's worth noting also that in Lev 25:42 Israelite servants are referred to as Yahweh's servants, implying that foreign ones are not. Could this mean that for a foreigner to become the servant of an Israelite would indirectly make him Yahweh's servant?
Again, this was a case of punishment for wrongdoing (by the Midianites), and cannot be dismissed as rape or whatever.

Why do you keep making excuses for the disgusting behaviour described in the not so good book?

[ippy]

Let's look at the Hebrew and the context, then.

There is only one Hebrew word for someone who is serving someone else (ebed). It's contrasted with hired worker in Lev. 25:40. This suggests that if there was one word that would fit all instances it would be servant, rather than slave. One form of this word, 'abed', occurs 6 times. Two of these are in Genesis 44 where Joseph tells his brothers that the one who is found to have Joseph's cup will become his servant. So the context here is that Benjamin would be put to work because he had done something wrong. Most people would agree that this sort of forced service in itself is not morally wrong, but right. Compare with forcing a criminal to do community service.
In 1 Kings 9:22, 'abed' is again used when Solomon imposes forced service onto the remaining Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites who were still living in Israel. In this instance again, the word is used of people descended from the corrupt peoples of Canaan.
In Proverbs 29:19 it is used for a servant who won't be corrected by words alone. Someone might say this is morally wrong, but four verses previously it mentions disciplining a child by physical means, implying that it is sometimes appropriate to discipline someone physically if they are doing something wrong.

The context in Leviticus 25:39-46 is that it's contrasting people who are bought temporarily (fellow Israelites) with people who are bought as permanent property (only foreigners). Note that it's about purchasing a servant. It's not kidnapping a person in order to force them to work or sell them, which was a capital offence (Ex 21:16). It is assumed, since this is written for legal purposes, that because the buyer is investing his wealth, for that reason he will treat the servant well. (This is the implied meaning of Exodus 21:21 "for he is his money"; likewise a girl who is raped in the countryside is assumed to have cried for help, see Dt 22:27 "For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her".)

It's worth noting also that in Lev 25:42 Israelite servants are referred to as Yahweh's servants, implying that foreign ones are not. Could this mean that for a foreigner to become the servant of an Israelite would indirectly make him Yahweh's servant?
Again, this was a case of punishment for wrongdoing (by the Midianites), and cannot be dismissed as rape or whatever.

This is just Spud giving out another load of that cross between theobabble and theobollocks in an effort to kid or in some way fool himself into thinking he's being realistic.

ippy.

[jeremyp]

The context in Leviticus 25:39-46 is that it's contrasting people who are bought temporarily (fellow Israelites) with people who are bought as permanent property (only foreigners).

"people who are bought as permanent property". You mean slaves.

[ProfessorDavey]

"people who are bought as permanent property". You mean slaves.

Exactly - the definition of a slave.

And in fact being bought if someone is bought as property, even if temporary, that is still slavery.

[SteveH]

Exactly - the definition of a slave.

Not a comprehensive one, though: there are forms of slavery in which the slave is not, legally speaking, the property of their master, such as debt-bondage.

[Spud]

Exactly - the definition of a slave.

And in fact being bought if someone is bought as property, even if temporary, that is still slavery.

Hebrew only has one word that encompasses both servants and slaves, and according to Galatians 3:28 it means the opposite of free.

Bear in mind that no-one living in Israel was required to work on the Sabbath, and during the Sabbath year there was no heavy labour because the fields were left desolate (although Solomon conscripted foreign labourers as builders). So God's concept of slavery is different from our post-slave trade concept, because we associate it with ill-treatment and overwork.

[Roses]

Hebrew only has one word that encompasses both servants and slaves, and according to Galatians 3:28 it means the opposite of free.

Bear in mind that no-one living in Israel was required to work on the Sabbath, and during the Sabbath year there was no heavy labour because the fields were left desolate (although Solomon conscripted foreign labourers as builders). So God's concept of slavery is different from our post-slave trade concept, because we associate it with ill-treatment and overwork.

Your responses would be almost amusing if they weren't so very silly.

[SteveH]

Your responses would be almost amusing if they weren't so very silly.

Why is it silly?

[Christine]

Why is it silly?

I don't know why Littleroses thinks it's silly, but I think it's silly because the poor chap is tying himself in knots trying to justify the entirely unjustifiable.  It surely couldn't be beyond a "God" to just have replaced all the strictures about how to properly treat slaves with something along the lines of "All humans are equal in my eyes.  Treat other people with respect.  And no mealy-mouthed excuses, thank you".

Or it could just have not created empathy-free-psycho-haters in the first place? 

[Spud]

Christine,
I'm not trying to justify slavery, or at least I am trying to avoid giving that impression. The verses that mention slaves do effectively say what you suggest. They are not promoting it, but permitting it given that it is an outworking of sin in the first place, going right back to Genesis 3. It doesn't say slavery is good, likewise polygamy... More here:

https://youtu.be/cC5_LX53aOw

[ProfessorDavey]

So God's concept of slavery is different from our post-slave trade concept, because we associate it with ill-treatment and overwork.

The point about slavery isn't that people may be ill treated or overworked, it is that people are owned as property. That's what defines slavery. A person that is owned as property is a slave regardless of how well or badly treated they are. Someone who isn't owned as property isn't a slave even if they are overworked and ill treated.

[Anchorman]

The point about slavery isn't that people may be ill treated or overworked, it is that people are owned as property. That's what defines slavery. A person that is owned as property is a slave regardless of how well or badly treated they are. Someone who isn't owned as property isn't a slave even if they are overworked and ill treated.

Wee geeky point here, before we get into the concept of slavery.
The references to slavery in the Pentateuch show, again, that the Pentateuch was heavily editred, during the Exile - when slavery in the Babylonian and later Persian model in the seventh -fifth centuries BC would have been known to the writers.
Slavery in the time at which the Pentateuch is set (presumably between the eighteenth and twelfth centuries BC) in Egypt was a very different cincept, and only ever seen as a result of military expeditions into either the Levant or Sudan, when prisoners were taken and used as slaves...but the idea of a slave population is anathema. Children of slaves were free - though usually Egyptianised and programmed to spread Egyptian ideas in their former lands. Exceptions were made only in cases of more intelligent or educated former slaves, who would rise in the administration with no taint of slavery.

[SteveH]

The point about slavery isn't that people may be ill treated or overworked, it is that people are owned as property. That's what defines slavery. A person that is owned as property is a slave regardless of how well or badly treated they are. Someone who isn't owned as property isn't a slave even if they are overworked and ill treated.

As I said easrlier, some forms of slavery do not involve the slave being the legal property of someone else. Debt-bondasge is an example.

[Anchorman]

Christine,
I'm not trying to justify slavery, or at least I am trying to avoid giving that impression. The verses that mention slaves do effectively say what you suggest. They are not promoting it, but permitting it given that it is an outworking of sin in the first place, going right back to Genesis 3. It doesn't say slavery is good, likewise polygamy... More here:

https://youtu.be/cC5_LX53aOw

   


However, You Are commentting on a system of slavery which simply did not exist when the events in the Pentateuch were supposed to have occurred.

[ProfessorDavey]

As I said easrlier, some forms of slavery do not involve the slave being the legal property of someone else. Debt-bondasge is an example.

The definition of slavery is that a person is owned as property. There is no other definition - if you aren't owned as property then it isn't slavery, if you are then it is.

[SteveH]

The definition of slavery is that a person is owned as property. There is no other definition - if you aren't owned as property then it isn't slavery, if you are then it is.

That is not the definition of slavery. From the New Shorter Oxford Dictionary:

A person who is the property of another and is bound to absolute obedience; a huma chattel; a servant, worker or subject completely without freedom and rights.....a person completely under the domination of or subject to a specified influence.