English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

The Bible clearly approves of slavery in many passages, and it goes so far as to tell how to obtain slaves, how hard you can beat them, and when you can have sex with the female slaves.

'However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.

2007-03-21 00:09:41 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

15 answers

Just another example of a book so shot through with inconsistencies and contradictions that it hardly holds together at all.

Amazing how the religious fanatics will tell you that everything in the Bible is absolute truth straight from God himself... er except the bits they prefer not to think about.

You can't suddenly start explaining away passages advocating slavery as "a sign of the times the bible was written in... blah blah" and yet insist that every word concerning creation, homosexuality, the ressurection, miracles etc etc is the absolute truth and not also just a product of the times and beliefs of those who wrote that stuff. It's all or nothing... you can't pick and choose the bits that suit you and forget the rest.

If the Bible in the OT is right about creation then it must be right about slavery. If the Bible is correct in condemning homosexuality then why are Christians permitted to wear clothes with mixed fabrics which is condemned in the same breath?

The answer is simple... Christians choose the parts of the bible that suit them, interpret those they can twist to their way of thinking to serve their own purposes and conveniently forget the rest. This is called HYPOCRISY

2007-03-21 00:30:15 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 3

At one time slavery was an accepted institution. There were two kinds of slaves: bonded and unbonded. An unbonded slave was property to be done with as his master pleased. A bonded slave was a freed slave that had elected to stay with his master and serve for wages and the other benefits according a member of the household. A bonded slave served was a willing domestic servant. Today, slavery is outlawed in every nation on the planet, although it still exists and the laws against it are seldom enforced. God allowed slavery that he might be glorified. I know this is difficult to understand, but God does everything with definite purpose. Basically, God desires that mankind receive the greatest amount of good and that he, God, receive the greatest amount of glory. Spiritual growth is a gradual thing---we are incapable of handling God's glory all at once. This is why we must start at the ground level and work our way up. Spiritual growth is an eternal process, which is why hell is so horrible because there is no spiritual growth in hell.

2007-03-21 07:23:58 · answer #2 · answered by Preacher 6 · 1 0

Think about it, 2000-3500 years ago, there was no real security for people or police or the United Nations. Slavery could actually have been a protection for people. Been a slave you will have a place to live and eat.

After wars, Israel will take people as slaves, maybe these people would have died of hunger or neighboring nations would have killed them or taken them into hard slavery.

Israel had laws concerning slavery.

You have to think that the world must have been more chaotic back then since there was less protection for the people.

Slavery could have been good for homless people or victims of war who had no place to live.

2007-03-21 07:17:26 · answer #3 · answered by sfumato1002 3 · 2 1

A SLAVE ESSENTIALLY WAS ,sorry about yelling,
the prodical son returned to slavery ,if you couldnt pay your way you could be clothed and fed by becomming a slave,
essentially it was to pay back the debt
a slave could free him/her self by returning the clothes,
we are looking at alternatives to bankruptsy ,
and of course primitive lives ,
barly above self sustaining
it takes 4 hours labour just to grow your own food ,
so rules were formulated ,
it is an abhorent practoice i refuse to redeem
currently there are more people enslaved than at any other time past 4 million is reported to be living in bonded abuse even to day
thuis is why i reply your posted question
but it is good you point out the failings so we can yet acclaim SET MY PEOPLE FREE.
every one is thy brother /sister child and heir of the father

2007-03-21 07:25:00 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

and what r u a slave to?


Michael Jackson - Man in the Mirror
That's Why I'm Starting With Me
I'm Starting With The Man In The Mirror
No Message Could Have Been Any Clearer....
If you want to make the world, a better place take a look at yourself and then make the change

2007-03-21 07:16:23 · answer #5 · answered by Maestro 3 · 1 0

That's the Old Testament. As Lewis Black has said, it's the book of his people and that Christians rarely get it right. All that changed with the coming of Christ. If that passage is from Leviticus, and I'm pretty sure it is, that is the most improperly quoted and misused book of the Bible. It contains mostly rules and regulations that most of us ignore now days unless it fits a certain agenda.

2007-03-21 07:21:28 · answer #6 · answered by Purdey EP 7 · 0 1

Gee, YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND HISTORY...

You are talking about times when a large percentage of the earth's population were slaves. For many fathers, their choice was to sell THEMSELVES into slavery in order for their family to be able to eat and live... Are you selfish enough to refuse that option and watch your family starve to death?

2007-03-21 07:28:01 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

Don't expect a decent answer. People tend to look the other way at passages like this one. They use the excuse that it was the old testament, so it passed away with Jesus. I find it interesting that it took almost over 1,800 years for God to communicate this to the world.

2007-03-21 07:16:43 · answer #8 · answered by in a handbasket 6 · 1 2

When one wishes to judge the living God for approving of slavery, one should give more than a cursory glance to the context wherein one feels he finds support for such judgment. One should begin, however, by recognizing that God did not introduce slavery – he regulated it by the Mosaic law. You will recall that God delivered the Hebrews from Egyptian slavery. Is it reasonable to believe that a God who saw such a plight and proceeded to deliver the people would thereafter enslave them all over again?

One should also recognize that slavery is not an inherently negative term – everyone is a slave to someone or something. At Romans 6:16 we read: "Do you not know that if you keep presenting yourselves to anyone as slaves to obey him, you ARE slaves of him, because you obey him, either of sin with death in view or of obedience with righteousness in view?" As Maestro above, rightly asked, what are YOU a slave to? Even Christian disciples of Jesus are called slaves to God. Jesus himself admonishes his followers to slave for the master, God.

War, poverty and crime were the basic factors that reduced persons to a state of servitude. Captives of war were often constituted slaves by their captors or were sold into slavery by them. Compare for instance, 2 Kings 5:2. In Israelite society a person who became poor could sell himself or his children into slavery to care for his indebtedness. See Exodus 21:7, Leviticus 25:39, 47 and 2 Kings 4:1. One guilty of thievery but unable to make compensation was sold for the things he stole, evidently regaining his freedom at the time all claims against him were cared for. Exodus 22:3 Compare this, please, to the modern-day practice of imprisoning thieves where they not only never make compensation but are now the financial burden of society.

At times slaves held a position of great trust and honor in a household. Abraham's slave (probably Eliezer) managed ALL his master's possession. See Genesis 24:2, 15:2, 3. Of course, European "Christians" saw to it that African slaves never managed anything except their own misery and agony.

The Mosaic law protected slaves from brutalities. Unlike the "Christian" Europeans and "Christian" Americans who could cut off the foot of an African slave for trying to escape, a slave was to be set at liberty if mistreatment by the master resulted in the loss of a tooth or eye. The usual value for a slave was 30 shekels, so his liberation would mean considerable loss to the master and, therefore, served as a strong deterrent against abuse.

The "Christian" European men and "Christian" American men could, and often did, rape the African women slaves with unmitigated glee any time they felt an urge for sex, despite the fact that they were often married and hence, able to be intimate with their own wives. However, certain special regulations applied to a female Hebrew slave. She could be taken as a concubine by the master or designated as a wife for his son. When such was the case, this wife of the master's son was treated with the due right of a daughter. Concubines, by law, were secondary wives, and not sex slaves as you so improperly imply. Even foreign women who became slaves to Hebrews were not treated as sex slaves. Fornication under the Mosaic law was prohibited, condemned and punished.

Certain privileges were granted to slaves by the terms of the Law. All male slaves were circumcised, could eat the Passover and slaves of the priest could eat holy things. Compare Exodus 12:44, Genesis 17:12, Exodus 12:43, 44 and Leviticus 22:10, 11. Please compare that with African slaves who obviously could eat no meals with their masters, let alone anything constituting holy things. And African slaves could not worship with their masters either even though they were forced to convert to "Christianity"

I hope this better helps you to appreciate the true condition of any slavery which existed among the Hebrews.

Hannah J Paul

2007-03-21 07:54:25 · answer #9 · answered by Hannah J Paul 7 · 0 0

They are very general here. So not able to comment. But when David was king, God was very angry with Him for taking another man's wife, though David was His favourite.

2007-03-21 07:15:47 · answer #10 · answered by Brinda 3 · 2 0

fedest.com, questions and answers