There are quite a few more exceptions. The military being a voluntarily entered into agreement, with the person having full knowledge of circumstances into which s/he is entering into being the most prominent one. It is by choice, that is. Whether or not people nowadays act morally has no bearing upon the fact that the Bible endorses/instructs/promotes clearly immoral behavior.

I am still interested in verses which substantiate these claims ,,,

See this post...

Mon 01/17/11 10:58 AM



There is no need to demonstrate any given regulation, for the similarities are between how slaves n the south were treated, and how slaves in the Bible were treated. They are mirror images of the same immoral behavior being enacted at two different times.

Women's suffrage supporters were not Christian men they were women.

Supporters of civil rights were not southern Christians.

Generalizations make the effort almost moot.

Do we want to go into all the bad that comes from the religion and can we generalize on that too?

People are different and no matter what religion they are they support different things.

Exodus 21:1-4 "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself."




SIX YEARS OF SERVICE (sounds like a contract)


Deuteronomy 15:12-18 "And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee.And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty: Thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy winepress: of that wherewith the Lord thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him."


SIX YEARS AND SEVERANCE(sounds like a contract)


there is also contextual value which involves understanding the number of years over which the bible was written and the difference between recollection within the bible of what DID happen and what GOD instructed to happen or JESUS showed by example should happen

to simply say slavery and lump all situations that fall under the label as amoral is a broad refusal to look at details,,,

I think that is an intellectual copout to the concept being debated. As PP said, mixing up what HAS been done with what was CONDONED or ALLOWED are different animals.

To say that biblical slavery was the same as western slavery merely because similar things HAPPENED, is to compare ARRANGED marriage customs to western marriage customs, because they are both labeled MARRIAGE


the difference in the details is important enough to be debated and backed up with some reviewable comparison,,,


remembering, the debate is not how man has treated man throughout his history(as that has never changed, the debate is what parts of mankinds behaviors were condoned or endorsed by biblical doctrine vs which were condoned or endorsed by MANS laws(civil tort)

To assume a positive from a slave/master relationship is surely not a positive nor healthy mindset.

If slaves have a shortage of choices and are then put into slavery it doesn't make it a better bondage. Nor does a "good" master make it alright to have a slave.

the only difference is means of compensation, the absence of a monetary compensation doesnt make something inherently evil or wrong


this was a common form of welfare where people needed to provide and others did so for them under certain conditions(like a contract)

Is it in question that slaves are held as inferior by virtue of their being slaves? One need not be born into slavery in order to be a slave, so whether or not one was born into biblical slavery is not in questio, not was it claimed. I mean, I'm questioning what it is that you're trying to say here Ms.

Are you saying that as long as biblical slavery was not exactly like modern American slavery in every way possible, that it(biblical slavery) is somehow ok?

I am saying that the blanket statement/debate 'The Bible condoned slavery'


baits people by the implication that ANY and ALL forms of slavery were given sanction by the BIBLE or even more blasphemously, by God



, the tone of the statement, when it ventures off into the 'evilness' of slavery is used to imply a similar correlation to an 'evil' bible or an 'evil' GOD


I think it is always important to point out exactly what the bible CONDONED Without limiting it to the singular semantic translation of 'slavery'. because in doing so all the emotional and MODERN historical context that is associated with slavery becomes, by association, associated with Gods word or Biblical doctrine and history


The bible, initially, condoned incest, but later , as the social environment changed, so did those regulations


similarly the biblical history of 'slavery' is quite long and not quite as simplistic as that one word has come to mean in our modern culture,, different regulations were given to both SPECIFIC groups at that time for their specific circumstances, and also to larger groups,,,but the ultimate TEACHER by example, CHRIST

certainly cleared all those regulations up with his example and teaching of how we are to treat each other,,,so I think that to take any one part of the bible in exclusion to the others to prove some point of absolute approval for one behavior or another is not the most intellectually honest thing to do,, and if one insists on doing so, it would seem to me, that the parts that would be best 'tied in' to christianity are those parts pertaining to CHRIST, and those parts which were written MOST recently regarding the laws,,,

Hebrew were special kinds of slaves, not lifelong. Slaves none-the-less. This one involves the Hebrews...

5But if he makes this statement: ‘I hereby declare my love for my master, my wife, and my children. I don’t want to leave as a FREE man,

Again, here we have the Bible itself clearly making the distinction between slavery and freedom. One cannot be both, because being a slave is not a free choice.

similar to free agent,, are athletes slaves though?or do they CHOOSE their contract


choice is not always so directly tied into ideals of 'freedom'

The bible condoned slavery in the form that we know it.

Of course those who want to say the bible is the word of god might have a hard time reconciling that fact.

Yes, it was voluntary, always. But the strikes permited were not what you assume...

What you need to think about is that not everyone claims the Bible is the "word of God". There is a moral to the whole thing, but it's one you gotta figure out for yourself. "Inspired" by God is another story... Another thing you need to figure out for yourself...

Did you know the Israelites were punished for their treatment of "slaves"?




You tell me. Should I believe blindly without checking the facts?
You have access to the Jewish Torah just the same as I do.
You also have access to the additional Hebrew books that governed their lives. (the 'net's a wonderful thing)





From the Wiki:
"Although slaves were often obtained through warfare in the ancient near east, this seems not to have been a significant source for Israel"

"slaves are admonished to obey their masters, as to the Lord, and not to men;[37][99][100][101][102] however Masters were told to serve their slaves "in the same way"[103] and "even better" as "brothers",[104] to not threaten them as God is their Master as well."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism_and_slavery


Seriously, you gotta look at this from all angles. People did enter into "slavery" voluntarily. Until you can accept that, there's nothing left to understand, correct?



for more chitz n giggle...
http://www.evilbible.com/Slavery.htm
(pretty much anything you need is there, there's no need to think for onself anymore, check the main page too!)

how is that so , I have posted verse which specifies that one should not turn in an 'escaped' slave and that once free (after a GIVEN period of time, as opposed to upon death) the slave was to receive certain resources to provide for themself...

how is that the form that we know?

The topic being debated is whether or not the bible condoned slavery. The text itself proves that it does.



No it is not. The comparison is had by virtue of the similarities beyond the name. Biblical slavery has much more in common with American slavery than just the name itself. These things have been presented. Your semantic approach here fails to describe the similarities that have been clearly shown/discussed.



The differences have no bearing upon the similarities. Pointing out where biblical slavery may be different at times, like with the time period regarding Hebrews, does not change the fact that the other similarities can/have been shown. It is in the examination of those things that we can see a great injustice served to humans. One of which that is being endorsed in the Bible. The Bible instructs how to both acquire and treat slaves...

It is not all good.



Are you denying that the Bible is the word of God?

Think about what you just wrote and what our slaves had here in this country and you can answer yourself.

This only deserves being repeated without any further comment.

The Bible still condones it, just as it still condones slavery. That is the point.