The Meaning Of The Bible

[Gordon]

What about if the society to which the custom of having servants (as 'property') pertains, believes it has experienced God?

There are two issues there: that they believed in 'God' and that they sanctioned slavery, and if the two are related in the sense that they decided this 'God' encouraged or permitted slavery, and therefore they felt justified in practicing slavery, then one can only conclude that their religious beliefs condoned their dreadful behaviour - so not much of an advert for religion or their cultural arrangements.

If that society obeys all the instructions on fair treatment, won't it appear to onlookers to be a system that works? For example, we might see that servants love their masters as described in Exodus 21:5, or an example where a master gives his daughter to his foreign servant in marriage (1 Chronicles 2:34-35)

Only if said onlookers thought that slavery and 'giving away daughters' was 'fair treatment': and if they did think that then I would question their judgement.

Could that be evidence that they had experienced God?

Aside from you begging the question here, I think it would only be evidence of the social mores of that time, place and culture.

[Spud]

There are two issues there: that they believed in 'God' and that they sanctioned slavery,

By not allowing fellow Hebrews to become permanent slaves, they acknowledged that slavery is not a good situation to be in.

Another perspective on non-Hebrew slaves is that (like with the prohibition from intermarrying with 'pagans') these slaves were not permitted to be released like Hebrews were because of their background. They came from nations that practiced idolatry, so releasing them would risk them lapsing back into idolatry, which was to be eliminated in the land. This would also explain why they could be vigorously disciplined. If they were circumcised they could share the passover, becoming part of the family and having less need for harsh discipline.

[Gordon]

By not allowing fellow Hebrews to become permanent slaves, they acknowledged that slavery is not a good situation to be in.

Another perspective on non-Hebrew slaves is that (like with the prohibition from intermarrying with 'pagans') these slaves were not permitted to be released like Hebrews were because of their background. They came from nations that practiced idolatry, so releasing them would risk them lapsing back into idolatry, which was to be eliminated in the land. This would also explain why they could be vigorously disciplined. If they were circumcised they could share the passover, becoming part of the family and having less need for harsh discipline.

So, idolatry is more heinous than slavery then, never mind the encouragement given to indulge in a bit of physical mutilation so as to avoid at least a degree of "harsh discipline".

The surprising thing to me is that you don't seem to even recognise just how many truly awful things your are trying to justify here. 

[Roses]

By not allowing fellow Hebrews to become permanent slaves, they acknowledged that slavery is not a good situation to be in.

Another perspective on non-Hebrew slaves is that (like with the prohibition from intermarrying with 'pagans') these slaves were not permitted to be released like Hebrews were because of their background. They came from nations that practiced idolatry, so releasing them would risk them lapsing back into idolatry, which was to be eliminated in the land. This would also explain why they could be vigorously disciplined. If they were circumcised they could share the passover, becoming part of the family and having less need for harsh discipline.

What a DISGUSTING post. If your version of god exists and approves of the statement you have made it should be exterminated!

[Spud]

What a DISGUSTING post. If your version of god exists and approves of the statement you have made it should be exterminated!

How do you propose to do that?

[Roses]

How do you propose to do that?

I am sure human ingenuity could come up with some method of disposing of it.

[Nearly Sane]

How do you propose to do that?

LR has a pet dalek

[Roses]

LR has a pet dalek

I have 4 pet daleks, maybe I should put them to good use.

[Spud]

I have 4 pet daleks, maybe I should put them to good use.

Maybe they could team up with Gordon's dragon?

[Owlswing]

Maybe they could team up with Gordon's dragon?

Maybe it would be easier to wipe out Christians rather than their God? It would achieve the same end. Without Christians to do his will, he would be totally impotent in the world!

[Spud]

Maybe it would be easier to wipe out Christians rather than their God? It would achieve the same end. Without Christians to do his will, he would be totally impotent in the world!

Already been tried, problem was then more people became Christians.

[Owlswing]

Already been tried, problem was then more people became Christians.

When and by whom?

Owlswing

)O(

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

No. You need to look at the big picture: 24“ ‘Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. 25Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. 26But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the foreigners residing among you must not do any of these detestable things, 27for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. 28And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you.
Leviticus 18

Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. 3Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, 4for they will turn your children away from following me to serve other gods, and the Lord’s anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you.
Deuteronomy 7

That’s not the big picture at all. It’s the very narrow picture of selective quoting from ancient (and by modern standards crude) attempts at moral philosophy. Since then we’ve had a vast amount of more developed reasoning to bring to the table, and thereby arrived at moral positions that paint yours as despicable. That’s the "big picture". 

[Spud]

So, idolatry is more heinous than slavery then, never mind the encouragement given to indulge in a bit of physical mutilation so as to avoid at least a degree of "harsh discipline".

The surprising thing to me is that you don't seem to even recognise just how many truly awful things your are trying to justify here.

The covenant of circumcision was a sign of fidelity to God, but this was temporal - now obsolete.

The conquest of Canaan was also not something that can be repeated. The emphasis was on driving out the idolatrous inhabitants of the land where the holy God was literally present.

But regarding the passage (Lev 25) the key phrase is "they (the Hebrews) are my servants (v.42)". Contrast this with Deut. 7:3 "for they will turn your children away from following me to serve other gods".

We see the choice is between serving God or other gods.

[Roses]

The covenant of circumcision was a sign of fidelity to God, but this was temporal - now obsolete.

The conquest of Canaan was also not something that can be repeated. The emphasis was on driving out the idolatrous inhabitants of the land where the holy God was literally present.

But regarding the passage (Lev 25) the key phrase is "they (the Hebrews) are my servants (v.42)". Contrast this with Deut. 7:3 "for they will turn your children away from following me to serve other gods".

We see the choice is between serving God or other gods.

There is no evidence to support the existence of any god, which are most likely human inventions.

[Gordon]

The covenant of circumcision was a sign of fidelity to God, but this was temporal - now obsolete.

Have you informed the Chief Rabbi of this?

The conquest of Canaan was also not something that can be repeated. The emphasis was on driving out the idolatrous inhabitants of the land where the holy God was literally present.

Which doesn't excuse what you say happened in the first place.

But regarding the passage (Lev 25) the key phrase is "they (the Hebrews) are my servants (v.42)". Contrast this with Deut. 7:3 "for they will turn your children away from following me to serve other gods".

We see the choice is between serving God or other gods.

These days other choices are available that don't involve enslaving people or encouraging the acceptance of mutilation for the sake of religious tradition: perhaps you try should not taking these ancient stories, albeit they may well have been cultural norms back in antiquity, too seriously as being relevant moral guidance for current times. 

[jeremyp]

God must have considered the treatment of the Israelites by the Egyptians to be morally wrong, because he brought them out of Egypt. So God is not telling the Israelites they can be like the Egyptians. But given that he says the land belongs to the Israelites, this means foreigners could only settle there as guests or servants. I think that is the meaning.

Why doesn't it say that then?

Why is it that God can never inspire the Bible writers to use plain language?

You look at this exactly backwards. You have moral principles which include "slavery is bad" so, when you see a passage in the Bible that simply accepts slavery as a fact of life instead of condemning it, you have to find a way to spin it.

I see four possibilities

1. God inspired the Bible and it says what he wants it to say. i.e. he's OK with slavery

2. God inspired the Bible and it says something he didn't want t to say but you can cleverly interpret it differently. i.e. God is an idiot who can't communicate.


3. Humans wrote the Bible and it says what they want it to say. i.e. they're OK with slavery

4. Humans wrote the Bible and it says something they didn't want t to say but you can cleverly interpret it differently. i.e.Humans are idiots who can't communicate.

Take your pick.

[jeremyp]

How do you propose to do that?

If everybody stops believing in it, it will be gone.

[Spud]

What a DISGUSTING post.

You may be right: I interpreted verse 46 as meaning that the Hebrews could not treat fellow Hebrews harshly, but they could do so with their foreign servants.

It's clear that "rule with vigor" (verse 46) means "Labour beyond the person's strength, or labor too long continued, or in unhealthy or uncomfortable places and circumstances, or without sufficient food, etc." (Clarke)
See Exodus 1:14 which uses the same word, "rigor".

Having looked at this again I think what it means is that they were not to overwork a fellow Hebrew (who might be working to pay off debts, for example); instead they were to take manservants and maidservants from among the foreigners, in order to spread the labour between more people so that said Hebrew workers wouldn't be overworked.

[Roses]

Hmmmmmmmmmm!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

When last I mentioned modern slavery here a few posters said it wasn't real slavery. I find that more concerning than past slavery.

People decry hebraic slavery of long ago but don't seem to register roman slavery of the same period.

I'm Spartacus by the way.

[Owlswing]

You may be right: I interpreted verse 46 as meaning that the Hebrews could not treat fellow Hebrews harshly, but they could do so with their foreign servants.

It's clear that "rule with vigor" (verse 46) means "Labour beyond the person's strength, or labor too long continued, or in unhealthy or uncomfortable places and circumstances, or without sufficient food, etc." (Clarke)
See Exodus 1:14 which uses the same word, "rigor".

Having looked at this again I think what it means is that they were not to overwork a fellow Hebrew (who might be working to pay off debts, for example); instead they were to take manservants and maidservants from among the foreigners, in order to spread the labour between more people so that said Hebrew workers wouldn't be overworked.

Spud - are you an American?


Owlswing

)O(

[Spud]

Only if the claim is underpinned by an argument, or evidence, that isn't easily refuted - so I'd need a lot more that anecdotes in an old book of uncertain provenance. In addition, this argument, or evidence, would need to be robust enough to counter any objections to any other arguments advanced for 'God'.

I'm not holding my breath though.

At the time, the claim was underpinned by evidence. This is Rahab talking to the spies:
"We have heard how the Lord dried up the water of the Red Sea a for you when you came out of Egypt, and what you did to Sihon and Og, the two kings of the Amorites east of the Jordan, whom you completely destroyed. b 11When we heard of it, our hearts melted in fear and everyone’s courage failed because of you, for the Lord your God is God in heaven above and on the earth below."
Joshua 2

That doesn't necessarily prove it for us, but it does justify the ownership of the land of Israel by the descendants of Jacob (given to them by God), in the story at least.

[Spud]

These days other choices are available that don't involve enslaving people or encouraging the acceptance of mutilation for the sake of religious tradition: perhaps you try should not taking these ancient stories, albeit they may well have been cultural norms back in antiquity, too seriously as being relevant moral guidance for current times.

The point is that to be eligible to have servants you have to first be a servant, according to this passage.

[Spud]

Why doesn't it say that then?

The passage as a whole is about the Israelites retaining possession of the land.

You look at this exactly backwards. You have moral principles which include "slavery is bad" so, when you see a passage in the Bible that simply accepts slavery as a fact of life instead of condemning it, you have to find a way to spin it.

Slavery in the sense of war captives is part of the judgment on Canaan. Other than that, the Bible condemns it.