Slavery! Why does the god of the Bible say that slavery is okay?

Why do you suppose the god of the Bible says there is nothing wrong with slavery?

"Slaves, male and female, you may indeed possess, provided you BUY them from among the neighboring nations. You may also BUY them from among the aliens who reside with you and from their children who are born and reared in your land. Such slaves YOU MAY OWN AS CHATTELS, and leave to your sons as their hereditary property, MAKING THEM PERPETUAL SLAVES. But you shall not lord it harshly over any of the Israelites, your kinsmen." Leviticus 25:44ff


My guess about the Bible is that it is the work of men writing down what they consider to be moral and immoral—not what any god considers moral or immoral. I think the reason the god of the Bible thinks there is nothing wrong with slavery is because the god of the Bible is a fictional character—and the words put into its mouth are the words of men, not gods. These men thought there was nothing wrong with slavery, so they had their fictional god agree with that sensibility.

What do you think?

Frank Apisa said:

Why do you suppose the god of the Bible says there is nothing wrong with slavery?

"Slaves, male and female, you may indeed possess, provided you BUY them from among the neighboring nations. You may also BUY them from among the aliens who reside with you and from their children who are born and reared in your land. Such slaves YOU MAY OWN AS CHATTELS, and leave to your sons as their hereditary property, MAKING THEM PERPETUAL SLAVES. But you shall not lord it harshly over any of the Israelites, your kinsmen." Leviticus 25:44ff


My guess about the Bible is that it is the work of men writing down what they consider to be moral and immoral—not what any god considers moral or immoral. I think the reason the god of the Bible thinks there is nothing wrong with slavery is because the god of the Bible is a fictional character—and the words put into its mouth are the words of men, not gods. These men thought there was nothing wrong with slavery, so they had their fictional god agree with that sensibility.

What do you think?

Click to expand...

I think that without man there would be no god, IOW; Man created God

No time to stop it

I believe it was not condemned outright, and even suggested how to be a good Christian slave in the NT because Christ's followers believed that he would return in their generation. There would have been no point in a "worldwide" revolution against slavery if the badass Christ of Revelation would soon pull a Return of the Jedi.

Mark 9:1 "And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power." meaning, "Some of you will see me again."

A bit of an apologist cop out, but thats always been how it was explained to me.

I think it's a bit more complicated than that. I think there are at least five "levels" of text within the Bible:

1) The inspired writings of people who had some genuine experience of God.

2) Rules and techniques that someone could use to experience God.

3) Traditions and stories that people wouldn't do without and wanted preserved as sacred.

4) Politically, economically, or socially motivated rules, laws, or stories that taught a moral related to the same.

5) Writings about people who were considered important--some of them having had direct experience of God.

The bit about slavery, and many of the other rules in Torah, clearly fall into category 4. Those rules are intended to effect a political or economic or social end. Slavery, as designed in the Bible, is intended to accrue economic power to Israel. The theology of the time (not just for Israel, but for most ancient nations) was very concerned with the power of the state. Part of the function of a state God or Gods was to make the state powerful, to maintain the land and the economy, and to exalt the people of the nation before all others. This was why the Babylonian Captivity was such a huge blow to the religion of Israel and Judea, and is how the god YHVH eventually came to dominate their culture.

I think it's a mistake to think of the slavery that existed at that time and the slavery with which we are more familiar these days as being the same thing. For one thing, people did not think of themselves in the same way we do today. The differences are hard to capture, but we today would think of slavery as involving some degradation and malice. People of the time would not. We today would think of slavery as involving a violation of rights. The people of the time would be less inclined to think so.

This isn't to say they were correct. Merely to point out that the opprobrium we would direct at a modern trafficker in human beings would not and should not attach to an ancient slave owner or trader. The indignation and degradation we would feel upon being sold into slavery would not have been recognized in most slaves of the time--though undoubtedly some of them did feel that way, especially if they had been free for part of their adult lives.

ashurbanipal said:

I think it's a bit more complicated than that. I think there are at least five "levels" of text within the Bible:

1) The inspired writings of people who had some genuine experience of God.

2) Rules and techniques that someone could use to experience God.

3) Traditions and stories that people wouldn't do without and wanted preserved as sacred.

4) Politically, economically, or socially motivated rules, laws, or stories that taught a moral related to the same.

5) Writings about people who were considered important--some of them having had direct experience of God.

The bit about slavery, and many of the other rules in Torah, clearly fall into category 4. Those rules are intended to effect a political or economic or social end. Slavery, as designed in the Bible, is intended to accrue economic power to Israel. The theology of the time (not just for Israel, but for most ancient nations) was very concerned with the power of the state. Part of the function of a state God or Gods was to make the state powerful, to maintain the land and the economy, and to exalt the people of the nation before all others. This was why the Babylonian Captivity was such a huge blow to the religion of Israel and Judea, and is how the god YHVH eventually came to dominate their culture.

I think it's a mistake to think of the slavery that existed at that time and the slavery with which we are more familiar these days as being the same thing. For one thing, people did not think of themselves in the same way we do today. The differences are hard to capture, but we today would think of slavery as involving some degradation and malice. People of the time would not. We today would think of slavery as involving a violation of rights. The people of the time would be less inclined to think so.

This isn't to say they were correct. Merely to point out that the opprobrium we would direct at a modern trafficker in human beings would not and should not attach to an ancient slave owner or trader. The indignation and degradation we would feel upon being sold into slavery would not have been recognized in most slaves of the time--though undoubtedly some of them did feel that way, especially if they had been free for part of their adult lives.

Click to expand...

For the sake of argument lets say that is so.
Then the question arrises, how do you differentiate between 2 and 4. It is pretty much all up to interpretation and perspective with no actual subjectivity whatsoever.

Lachean said:

Mark 9:1 "And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power." meaning, "Some of you will see me again."

Click to expand...

Against how this is usually interpretted, we can look to the Gospel of Thomas for an explanation:

"It will not come by waiting for it. It will
not be a matter of saying 'Here it is' or 'There it is.' Rather,the Kingdom of the Father is spread out upon the earth, and men
do not see it."

The point here is that later Christian writers took what was an initially mystical movement and turned it into an eschatological one. It's unfortunate that they were able to do so.

jfuh said:

For the sake of argument lets say that is so. Then the question arrises, how do you differentiate between 2 and 4. It is pretty much all up to interpretation and perspective with no actual subjectivity whatsoever.

Click to expand...

It's not so difficult as you might believe, though there are complications I would acknowledge.

We could eliminate from category 2 any that make no sense whatsoever in that context. Laws about what to do if you get Leprosy, for instance, are clearly intended as having an hygenic effect.

There are then those for which we could see a justification for either way. Since we're on the subject, we could talk about slavery in this context. I think there's little to recommend rules on slavery for category 2. But someone might argue that at a certain point, it is necessary for someone to stand in relation to others in the same way that God is supposed to stand in relation to them, and that being a slave-owner is the best we can do to accomplish this.

We then simply have to ask whether it seems to have that effect--i.e. do people who practice owning slaves obtain direct experience of God as a result? I think consensus would be that probably they don't.

I suspect that people became aware of spiritual objects (including God) one of two ways. There are people who are naturally inclined to have visions, out-of-body experiences, etc. etc. They are relatively rare throughout the population, but if we assume (as seems likely) that people biologically identical to us emerged about 100,000 years ago, we would gather that about 5% of any population was so inclined. This would mean that, probably, every person was acquainted with someone who had had direct experience of God.

Roughly 40,000 years ago, it appears that people began to discover halucinogenic plants, making the spiritual experience more common.

I also suspect, though of course I cannot prove, that over a long period of time--say, 20,000 to 30,000 years, people began to realize that there were techniques that could be used to order and direct such experiences. The fundamental rules were simple enough--it is necessary to quiet the mind, constrain thought, and a few other things which aren't articulable.

Rules emerged for the preliminary arrangement of these conditions. They were attuned culturally, of course. What obsesses me, as a westerner, will hardly affect, say, a South Pacific Islander, and vice-versa. All have the common purpose of getting the mind still so that the discovered techniques had the best chance of working.

Those rules that make little sense to us and that seem to have no ethical, economic, or social connotation are candidates for falling into category 2 on this reasoning. Injunctions about cutting your beard, for instance, would be an example. Men of the time judged how manly another man was by how much facial hair he had. If you had just cut your beard and were now worried about your standing in the community, you could hardly be expected to have success in stilling your mind or constraining your thoughts.

There are those rules that fall into both categories--and they're the ones we would recognize today as being still valid. For instance, rules against murder. Killing someone is a horrific act. Even if you get away with it, you either obsess over it or you completely lose your conscience, which is a necessary component for someone to experience God directly. However also, it is wrong in itself. No practical consequence for the mind of the murderer is needed to condemn murder.

ashurbanipal said:

It's not so difficult as you might believe, though there are complications I would acknowledge.

We could eliminate from category 2 any that make no sense whatsoever in that context. Laws about what to do if you get Leprosy, for instance, are clearly intended as having an hygenic effect.

There are then those for which we could see a justification for either way. Since we're on the subject, we could talk about slavery in this context. I think there's little to recommend rules on slavery for category 2. But someone might argue that at a certain point, it is necessary for someone to stand in relation to others in the same way that God is supposed to stand in relation to them, and that being a slave-owner is the best we can do to accomplish this.

We then simply have to ask whether it seems to have that effect--i.e. do people who practice owning slaves obtain direct experience of God as a result? I think consensus would be that probably they don't.

Click to expand...

That would be consensus of people of today because of various sociological changes that have taken place in the last 2 hundred years. However if we are to examine the mindset of people hundreds of years later I would not think that there would be such a consensus.
In otherwords pending on sociological changes that continue today we may have an entirely different interpretation of what falls under what with respect to 2 and 4.

Not to mention the fact of the very fallacy of drawing on the consensus of MAN not god - which seems contradictory to the very meaning of the bible which is supposedly the literal word of god. right?

ashurbanipal said:

I suspect that people became aware of spiritual objects (including God) one of two ways. There are people who are naturally inclined to have visions, out-of-body experiences, etc. etc. They are relatively rare throughout the population, but if we assume (as seems likely) that people biologically identical to us emerged about 100,000 years ago, we would gather that about 5% of any population was so inclined. This would mean that, probably, every person was acquainted with someone who had had direct experience of God.

Roughly 40,000 years ago, it appears that people began to discover halucinogenic plants, making the spiritual experience more common.

Click to expand...

Read this yet? How's that for revelations hehehe.

ashurbanipal said:

I also suspect, though of course I cannot prove, that over a long period of time--say, 20,000 to 30,000 years, people began to realize that there were techniques that could be used to order and direct such experiences. The fundamental rules were simple enough--it is necessary to quiet the mind, constrain thought, and a few other things which aren't articulable.

Rules emerged for the preliminary arrangement of these conditions. They were attuned culturally, of course. What obsesses me, as a westerner, will hardly affect, say, a South Pacific Islander, and vice-versa. All have the common purpose of getting the mind still so that the discovered techniques had the best chance of working.

Those rules that make little sense to us and that seem to have no ethical, economic, or social connotation are candidates for falling into category 2 on this reasoning. Injunctions about cutting your beard, for instance, would be an example. Men of the time judged how manly another man was by how much facial hair he had. If you had just cut your beard and were now worried about your standing in the community, you could hardly be expected to have success in stilling your mind or constraining your thoughts.

There are those rules that fall into both categories--and they're the ones we would recognize today as being still valid. For instance, rules against murder. Killing someone is a horrific act. Even if you get away with it, you either obsess over it or you completely lose your conscience, which is a necessary component for someone to experience God directly. However also, it is wrong in itself. No practical consequence for the mind of the murderer is needed to condemn murder.

Click to expand...

Can't argue much with these really.

ashurbanipal said:

I think it's a bit more complicated than that. I think there are at least five "levels" of text within the Bible:

1) The inspired writings of people who had some genuine experience of God.

2) Rules and techniques that someone could use to experience God.

3) Traditions and stories that people wouldn't do without and wanted preserved as sacred.

4) Politically, economically, or socially motivated rules, laws, or stories that taught a moral related to the same.

5) Writings about people who were considered important--some of them having had direct experience of God.

The bit about slavery, and many of the other rules in Torah, clearly fall into category 4. Those rules are intended to effect a political or economic or social end. Slavery, as designed in the Bible, is intended to accrue economic power to Israel. The theology of the time (not just for Israel, but for most ancient nations) was very concerned with the power of the state. Part of the function of a state God or Gods was to make the state powerful, to maintain the land and the economy, and to exalt the people of the nation before all others. This was why the Babylonian Captivity was such a huge blow to the religion of Israel and Judea, and is how the god YHVH eventually came to dominate their culture.

I think it's a mistake to think of the slavery that existed at that time and the slavery with which we are more familiar these days as being the same thing. For one thing, people did not think of themselves in the same way we do today. The differences are hard to capture, but we today would think of slavery as involving some degradation and malice. People of the time would not. We today would think of slavery as involving a violation of rights. The people of the time would be less inclined to think so.

This isn't to say they were correct. Merely to point out that the opprobrium we would direct at a modern trafficker in human beings would not and should not attach to an ancient slave owner or trader. The indignation and degradation we would feel upon being sold into slavery would not have been recognized in most slaves of the time--though undoubtedly some of them did feel that way, especially if they had been free for part of their adult lives.

Click to expand...

Does this commentary of yours reduce to: Even though the words say that the god of the Bible gives his blessings to the institution of slavery, we cannot be sure that the god actually feels that way?

And, by extension, that we cannot be sure how the god feels about anything?

Given that we accept what you are saying, can we say that the Bible is of almost no value in telling us what would offend the god?

Re: No time to stop it

Lachean said:

I believe it was not condemned outright, and even suggested how to be a good Christian slave in the NT because Christ's followers believed that he would return in their generation. There would have been no point in a "worldwide" revolution against slavery if the badass Christ of Revelation would soon pull a Return of the Jedi.

Mark 9:1 "And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power." meaning, "Some of you will see me again."

A bit of an apologist cop out, but thats always been how it was explained to me.

Click to expand...

It definitely was not condemned in any way in the New Testament. In fact, the suggestion that it was moral was reinforced in several places in the New Testament by St. Paul himself.

The answer is very simple.Its because it was written at a time when slavery was the norm.

mikhail said:

The answer is very simple.Its because it was written at a time when slavery was the norm.

Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean by that!

Are you saying the god of the Bible said it was okay because slavery was the norm?

Frank Apisa said:

Why do you suppose the god of the Bible says there is nothing wrong with slavery?

"Slaves, male and female, you may indeed possess, provided you BUY them from among the neighboring nations. You may also BUY them from among the aliens who reside with you and from their children who are born and reared in your land. Such slaves YOU MAY OWN AS CHATTELS, and leave to your sons as their hereditary property, MAKING THEM PERPETUAL SLAVES. But you shall not lord it harshly over any of the Israelites, your kinsmen." Leviticus 25:44ff


My guess about the Bible is that it is the work of men writing down what they consider to be moral and immoral—not what any god considers moral or immoral. I think the reason the god of the Bible thinks there is nothing wrong with slavery is because the god of the Bible is a fictional character—and the words put into its mouth are the words of men, not gods. These men thought there was nothing wrong with slavery, so they had their fictional god agree with that sensibility.

What do you think?

Click to expand...

Do you like setting up blocks and knocking them down?

Do you like setting up blocks and knocking them down?

Click to expand...

Doesn't everyone like setting up blocks and knocking them down?

Evidently it's Frank's favorite past time.

Yes, religion is retarded.

Any rational person denies the obvious ludicrousness of superstition.

But people aren't rational. Debating religion is pointless. Only very, very stupid people are unaware of the contradictions of religion. Religious people know about the inherent flaws of their beleif, they just either rationalize them away on a superficial level or make a concious choice to not care about them.

You could maybe change a child's mind about religion, but an adult has either decided to believe, and ignore the obvious problems, or has not.

There's no point discussing it. It's obviously false as it claims to not require evidence. When a belief system denies empiricism the debate ends.

Epicurious 2.0

Frank Apisa said:

Are you saying the god of the Bible said it was okay because slavery was the norm?

Click to expand...

Does the god of the bible even exist to say/support it? What reason do you have to think so?

If your god even exists, is he willing to prevent slavery, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent, and unfit for worship.

Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh slavery?

Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? Considering there is no reason to believe the god of the Bible exists in the first place.

jfuh said:

That would be consensus of people of today because of various sociological changes that have taken place in the last 2 hundred years. However if we are to examine the mindset of people hundreds of years later I would not think that there would be such a consensus. In otherwords pending on sociological changes that continue today we may have an entirely different interpretation of what falls under what with respect to 2 and 4.

Click to expand...

Something I acknowledge elsewhere in my post--however, I specifically picked this one because I am not aware of anyone having done this (i.e. attained direct experience of God by owning slaves) either in the modern or ancient world.

jfuh said:

Not to mention the fact of the very fallacy of drawing on the consensus of MAN not god - which seems contradictory to the very meaning of the bible which is supposedly the literal word of god. right?

Click to expand...

Well, don't take me as defending the Bible as the literal word of God. I don't see it that way. Note that none of my categories say "The word of God." The closest is the first, which is just the word of a person who had direct knowledge of God. God, in my experience, does not use words per se.

My point was that we can understand which rules are which by looking at their effect.

jfuh said:

Read this yet? How's that for revelations hehehe.

Click to expand...

I suspect he was in an altered state of consciousness through some means. He was supposedly an initiate of both the Egyptian and Sinaitic schools of magick/mysticism, so he may have also been using techniques he learned from those schools. I would not be surprised to see some strange phenomena if we could travel back in time and discover that this was an actual, historic happening. But we would not see God's hind parts and his fingers writing on tablets of stone.

Frank Apisa said:

Does this commentary of yours reduce to: Even though the words say that the god of the Bible gives his blessings to the institution of slavery, we cannot be sure that the god actually feels that way?

And, by extension, that we cannot be sure how the god feels about anything?

Given that we accept what you are saying, can we say that the Bible is of almost no value in telling us what would offend the god?

Click to expand...

I seriously doubt that God is or would be offended by anything. Why would it?

The instances of God claiming offense are men thinking God would be offended. At times, those are a genuine misunderstanding. When the mind is less quiet or less focussed, it is harder to obtain spiritual experience--which the early practicioners may have understood as God being offended. And if you're seeking spiritual experience, it works well to think of things as if this were the case. But this is a matter of practical concern in order to achieve certain effects. It's really nothing to do with morality.

At other times, those proclamations are the result of bald-faced manipulation on the part of the priests.

The Bible does have value for several reasons. From my perspective, items 1 and 2 are the parts I'm interested in. Parts of Ecclesiastes, the Visions of Daniel, Ezekiel, Isaiah, the first five chapters of Genesis, and most of the Johannine literature all falls into one of those two categories. And we shouldn't forget the Song of Songs.

On the other hand, much of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, Chronicles and Kings, the Pauline Epistles, and many portions of the synoptic gospels are quite harmful.

ashurbanipal said:

Something I acknowledge elsewhere in my post--however, I specifically picked this one because I am not aware of anyone having done this (i.e. attained direct experience of God by owning slaves) either in the modern or ancient world.

Click to expand...

:think: I don't think that the act itself allowed for experience of god, but I'm sure that there were arguments presented that it allowed the masters the time to seek god and thus justifying the slavery or something to that extent.

ashurbanipal said:

Well, don't take me as defending the Bible as the literal word of God. I don't see it that way.

Click to expand...

This exchange would be going very differently if I thought you did hehe.

ashurbanipal said:

Note that none of my categories say "The word of God." The closest is the first, which is just the word of a person who had direct knowledge of God. God, in my experience, does not use words per se.

My point was that we can understand which rules are which by looking at their effect.

Click to expand...

I think even that is still difficult because it would all be a matter of perspective.

ashurbanipal said:

I suspect he was in an altered state of consciousness through some means. He was supposedly an initiate of both the Egyptian and Sinaitic schools of magick/mysticism, so he may have also been using techniques he learned from those schools. I would not be surprised to see some strange phenomena if we could travel back in time and discover that this was an actual, historic happening. But we would not see God's hind parts and his fingers writing on tablets of stone.

Click to expand...

Do you remember the movie the ten commandments?
This scene in particular struck me that they were all under some drug. dancing around with the golden bull then mosses tosses the ten commandments at them.

Frank Apisa said:

Not sure what you mean by that!

Are you saying the god of the Bible said it was okay because slavery was the norm?

Click to expand...

Yes god as an author always seems to echo the opinions of the time.

mikhail said:

Yes god as an author always seems to echo the opinions of the time.

Click to expand...

After reading this I've realized the point Pastafarians have been trying to make all along. God is indeed man made.

that spaghetti mosnter bullshit makes me want to become an ordained brother


it's possibly the greatest argument against atheism i've ever encountered

new coup for you said:

that spaghetti mosnter bullshit makes me want to become an ordained brother

it's possibly the greatest argument against atheism i've ever encountered

Click to expand...

You do know that Pastafarianism is actually an argument against religion....right?

new coup for you said:

Evidently it's Frank's favorite past time.

Yes, religion is retarded.

Any rational person denies the obvious ludicrousness of superstition.

But people aren't rational. Debating religion is pointless. Only very, very stupid people are unaware of the contradictions of religion. Religious people know about the inherent flaws of their beleif, they just either rationalize them away on a superficial level or make a concious choice to not care about them.

You could maybe change a child's mind about religion, but an adult has either decided to believe, and ignore the obvious problems, or has not.

There's no point discussing it. It's obviously false as it claims to not require evidence. When a belief system denies empiricism the debate ends.

Click to expand...

Well obviously I think there is a point in discussing it--which is why I am doing it.

A question that arises is though: Why are you doing it? Why are you here in a forum devoted to that very thing?

Re: Epicurious 2.0

Lachean said:

Does the god of the bible even exist to say/support it? What reason do you have to think so?

If your god even exists, is he willing to prevent slavery, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent, and unfit for worship.

Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh slavery?

Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? Considering there is no reason to believe the god of the Bible exists in the first place.

Click to expand...

Not sure what in hell you are talking about here. My question deals with god described in the Bible. If I asked how Superman reacts to Kryptonite, would you actually go though all the nonsense of pointing out that Superman is fictional--and try to make a case that the question makes no sense on that account?

I think any reasonable guess about the Bible is that it is a highly fanciful, self-serving history of the early Hebrews--interspersed with an almost laughable attempt at theology. I think any reasonable guess about the god of the Bible is that it is a fictional murderous, barbaric, vengeful god invented by ancient superstitious Hebrews to protect themselves from the murderous, barbaric, vengeful gods invented by their enemies.

So what is your point?