For example, the quote about slaves in Exodus was not a teaching. It’s historical context about law at that time. That verse was intended to prevent brutalities towards slaves (which at the time were either hired labourers or in indebted servitude who literally sold themselves to pay off a debt, they were freed or “released” when the monetary value of their debt was paid off. It’s not the same as the term for slavery we commonly associate with the it today). The only time a slave was to be beaten was for punishment, like attacking another person, stealing, raping, etc. It’s not like they had the local Sheriff’s office they could call, so land owners (who were often days away from nearby settlements) would be the legal authority of that area.
The wording that if a slave survives for a day or two was used to determine intent, as it was considered that if someone survives for a couple days after being punished then something else was also the cause of death, and not a direct result of the punishment enacted.
Ultimately the point here is that this isn’t a “teaching” in any way. Some things in the Bible are just historical facts and context.
Timothy 2:12 (I know you mean 1 Timothy even though you didn’t specify, because there’s a 1 Timothy and a 2 Timothy) also needs context, because that scripture is about spiritual matters. It’s like a chain of command for the purposes of order. This is something that you cannot pull a single scripture out and use only that as an example. There are many other scriptures that expand on this. For example, a man/husband is supposed to treat his wife like his own body and like a “weaker vessel” (implying a delicate and gentle approach), and anyone who does not hates himself and God.
Corinthians 11:5-6 - (which Corinthians? There’s two of them) how is this torture? It’s just about head coverings, and one that’s often taken out of context. Verse 11 and 12 say *“Besides, in connection with the Lord, neither is woman separate from man nor is man separate from woman. 12 For just as the woman is from the man, so also the man is through the woman; but all things are from God.”
Verse 15 also says “For her hair is given to her instead of a covering”
Basically neither man or women are better than the other, both are from God and that’s all that matters.
Titus 2:9-10 - You could literally replace “slave” with employee and “master” with boss or CEO, and then no one would say boo. As I mentioned earlier, the term slave is not the dehumanizing one we often use. Its modern counterpart is very close to “employee”.
Colossians 3:22-24, Leviticus 25:44-46, Peter 2:18 - same argument, because the term slave in these verses are not what you are attributing to it.
Edit: clarified about indebted servitude being about paying off a debt
This is probably the worst abuse of the “but context!” argument I have ever seen. Consideration of context is one thing, but you are just making up a more palatable meaning because that’s what you want to see. There is no actual context that changes what these verses mean, and your charitable interpretation of the word 'slave" is actually removing the true historical context.
This is probably the worst abuse of the “but context!” argument I have ever seen.
Context is king.
Consideration of context is one thing, but you are just making up a more palatable meaning because that’s what you want to see.
Absolutely not. The meaning of a single verse is meaningless without the broader context. Something that says “you must obey Jesus” means nothing until you understand *who" Jesus is.
and your charitable interpretation of the word 'slave" is actually removing the true historical context.
I think you’re mis-applying a different historical context.
“Broadly, the Biblical and Talmudic laws tended to consider slavery a form of contract between persons, theoretically reducible to voluntary slavery, unlike chattel slavery, where the enslaved person is legally rendered the personal property (chattel) of the slave owner.”
For example, the quote about slaves in Exodus was not a teaching. It’s historical context about law at that time. That verse was intended to prevent brutalities towards slaves
It’s not a teaching, it just explicitly tells people what to do and not to do. Makes sense.
(which at the time were either hired labourers or in indebted servitude who literally sold themselves to pay off a debt, they were freed or “released” when the monetary value of their debt was paid off. It’s not the same as the term for slavery we commonly associate with the it today).
Hired laborers and indentured servants whom you could beat and abuse, and had no freedom of their own. Hmm, I wonder if there’s a word for that…
The wording that if a slave survives for a day or two was used to determine intent, as it was considered that if someone survives for a couple days after being punished then something else was also the cause of death, and not a direct result of the punishment enacted.
Ultimately the point here is that this isn’t a “teaching” in any way. Some things in the Bible are just historical facts and context.
It’s not a teaching, it just explicitly tells people what to do and not to do. Makes sense.
Timothy 2:12 (I know you mean 1 Timothy even though you didn’t specify, because there’s a 1 Timothy and a 2 Timothy)
You’re very clever, congratulations.
also needs context, because that scripture is about spiritual matters. It’s like a chain of command for the purposes of order. This is something that you cannot pull a single scripture out and use only that as an example. There are many other scriptures that expand on this. For example, a man/husband is supposed to treat his wife like his own body and like a “weaker vessel” (implying a delicate and gentle approach), and anyone who does not hates himself and God.
You can give all the context you want, that’s sexism, plain and simple.
It’s like a chain of command for the purposes of order.
A chain of command you cannot change, that is not based on knowledge or experience, but on what’s between your legs.
Corinthians 11:5-6 - (which Corinthians? There’s two of them)
Or not so clever, I guess.
We have this wonderful new technology called google. Feel free to use it.
Or not, since it was created by the devil of science.
how is this torture? It’s just about head coverings, and one that’s often taken out of context. Verse 11 and 12 say *“Besides, in connection with the Lord, neither is woman separate from man nor is man separate from woman. 12 For just as the woman is from the man, so also the man is through the woman; but all things are from God.”
The Bible doesn’t teach dominating and torturing people, for one.
Forcing women to shave their heads sure sounds like dominating to me…
Basically neither man or women are better than the other, both are from God and that’s all that matters.
Men aren’t forced to shave their hair, and using your analogy, they are always higheron the chain of command than women.
Titus 2:9-10 - You could literally replace “slave” with employee and “master” with boss or CEO, and then no one would say boo. As I mentioned earlier, the term slave is not the dehumanizing one we often use. Its modern counterpart is very close to “employee”.
Except CEOs aren’t allowed to beat up employees, and employees are free to leave.
Colossians 3:22-24, Leviticus 25:44-46, Peter 2:18 - same argument, because the term slave in these verses are not what you are attributing to it.
“Employees, be subject to your CEOs with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse.”
And all of this not even talking about the rampant homophobia, genocide, etc commanded in the bible
“Broadly, the Biblical and Talmudic laws tended to consider slavery a form of contract between persons, theoretically reducible to voluntary slavery, unlike chattel slavery, where the enslaved person is legally rendered the personal property (chattel) of the slave owner.”
“Ancient Israelite society allowed slavery; however, total domination of one human being by another was not permitted.[16][17] Rather, slavery in antiquity among the Israelites was closer to what would later be called indentured servitude.[15] Slaves were seen as an essential part of a Hebrew household.[18] In fact, there were cases in which, from a slave’s point of view, the stability of servitude under a family in which the slave was well-treated would have been preferable to economic freedom.”
“Although not prohibited, Jewish ownership of non-Jewish slaves was constrained by Rabbinic authorities since non-Jewish slaves were to be offered conversion to Judaism during their first 12-months term as slaves. If accepted, the slaves were to become Jews, hence redeemed immediately. If rejected, the slaves were to be sold to non-Jewish owners. Accordingly, the Jewish law produced a constant stream of Jewish converts with previous slave experience. Additionally, Jews were required to redeem Jewish slaves from non-Jewish owners, making them a privileged enslavement item, albeit temporary. The combination has made Jews less likely to participate in enslavement and slave trade.”
“The Torah forbids the return of runaway slaves who escape from their foreign land and their bondage and arrive in the Land of Israel. Furthermore, the Torah demands that such former slaves be treated equally to any other resident alien.”
"Indentured servitude is a form of labor in which a person is contracted to work without salary for a specific number of years. The contract, called an “indenture”, may be entered “voluntarily” for purported eventual compensation or debt repayment, or it may be imposed “involuntarily” as a judicial punishment. "
Yes, there’s a lot more in that Wikipedia page, but Jewish history expands well past the Bible and the 1st century. I’m just focusing on the Biblical period.
Slavery pre-American colonial settlement is far more nuanced than people realize. Dan Carlin’s Hardcore History podcast goes into immense detail in the Humane Resources episode (and that’s “humans as resources” in the title).
You can give all the context you want, that’s sexism, plain and simple.
Is it though? Because 1 Corinthians says "For just as the woman is from the man, so also the man is through the woman; but all things are from God.” Which is to say neither men or women are above the other, they are equal to God.
A chain of command you cannot change, that is not based on knowledge or experience, but on what’s between your legs.
True, but an employee at a large company cannot become the CEO (yes, I know it’s “technically” possible, but how often does that happen?). I know you’ll disagree on this, and that’s fine, we can disagree. But my position is that this “order” isn’t oppressive in any way. There’s no privilege or power in the role (there isn’t supposed to be, but we know that it has been abused countless times). It’s only meant to be a role to be assign leadership to a clearly defined person in the family. A “leader” doesn’t control the people they are leading, they simply the person that gives guidance for the group as a whole. Anyways, we’re going to disagree on this.
Or not so clever, I guess.
We have this wonderful new technology called google. Feel free to use it.
I knew which Corinthians was being referenced. I was pointing out that OP keeps referencing scriptures without giving all the details. Which matters because they’ve been touting their expertise and deep knowledge in the topic.
Forcing women to shave their heads sure sounds like dominating to me…
Men aren’t forced to shave their hair, and using your analogy, they are always higheron the chain of command than women.
Men (in ancient Israel) are required to do other things, like cut the tip of their genitals off.
Taking a single example is cherry-picking. There are many things that were required of both men and women, and people in all different stations.
Except CEOs aren’t allowed to beat up employees, and employees are free to leave.
Because in modern days we have extensive and well established legal codes and policing infrastructures. Back in the Bible on a farm being worked by many people, the closest settlement would have been many hours, if not days away. There was no local police station, no 911 or emergency services. Land owners were thus expected to be the ones enforcing the law on their land. We also have extensive and meticulous laws covering all kinds of topics, scenarios, and conditions that are recorded in explicit detail. Back then most people didn’t read, and if they did they definitely didn’t have any access to a copy of the law. As such laws were often simple and not complex so that the average person could grasp and remember them.
That being said, slavery in the Bible isn’t what you think it is (as I mentioned earlier in my comment). A slave would only receive such punishment if they did something extremely heinous, like murder someone.
“Broadly, the Biblical… equally to any other resident alien.”*
What you forgot you mention about the wikipedia page, is that these are not facts, but quotes from a religious scholar.
A religious scholar, who would greatly benefit from people thinking of positively of his religion.
If google puts it on their wikipedia page that them avoiding hundreds of millions in taxes is in context a really good thing, would you believe them?
Slavery pre-American colonial settlement is far more nuanced than people realize.
I don’t even need to respond to it, it just speaks for itself.
Is it though?
Yes. It’s literally “All of you are equal, some are just more equal than others”.
Which is to say neither men or women are above the other, they are equal to God.
Ah, I see. “Seperate but equal”.
True, but an employee at a large company cannot become the CEO (yes, I know it’s “technically” possible, but how often does that happen?).
It is possible, and it does happen.
In fact, every employee can start their own company and become its CEO.
A more apt analogy would be, a company where white people can become managers and C-suite, but black people cannot.
Would you support this?
That being said, slavery in the Bible isn’t what you think it is (as I mentioned earlier in my comment). A slave would only receive such punishment if they did something extremely heinous, like murder someone.
“The condition in which one person is owned as property by another and is under the owner’s control, especially in involuntary servitude.”
Yep, that fits.
I’ll never understand how people like you can sink to such levels, defending slavery.
A religious scholar, who would greatly benefit from people thinking of positively of his religion.
This assumes all religious scholars have a nefarious agenda. I don’t doubt some or many do, but no more so than the final population average. There are many who genuinely want to help others and believe in teaching and sharing peace.
I don’t even need to respond to it, it just speaks for itself.
Because you think “slavery” means the same thing across all time. That level of willful ignorance speaks for itself also.
Yes. It’s literally "All of you are equal, some are just more equal than others
No, it’s all are equal but not everyone can have the same job and responsibilities. Not everyone can be the owner of a company (unless you’re WestJet).
Ah, I see. “Seperate but equal”.
Just “equal”.
In fact, every employee can start their own company and become its CEO.
I did specify “large corporation” in my example. Thanks for ignoring that.
Yep, that fits.
Involuntary servitude under the law (back in the era we’re talking about) had clear definitions. It was often invoked to collect a debt and could only be held until the debt was paid off, not longer. Captured non-Hebrew enemies were also sometimes put under involuntary servitude. But they were required to either convert, at which point they would be freed. Or else sold off to a non-Hebrew.
I’ll never understand how people like you can sink to such levels, defending slavery.
And I’ll never understand how people can have such reductionist ways of thinking. “Slavery”, as it’s used today, is technically “chattel slavery”, which is different. They have similar letters in English, but are not the same thing. Some translations even use different terms because the modern English word “slavery” has a different meaning. Indentured and voluntary servitude were commonplace back then. Today it isn’t. Although the relationship between an employee and employer share many of the same definitions. “Slaves” under voluntary servitude were even able to “seek a new master”. Basically find a new job. Such cruelty.
This assumes all religious scholars have a nefarious agenda. I don’t doubt some or many do, but no more so than the final population average. There are many who genuinely want to help others and believe in teaching and sharing peace.
Well, this one clearly does, as he’s trying to whitewash slavery to make his religion look better. Seems pretty nefarious to me.
Because you think “slavery” means the same thing across all time
They are ot free to leave, and can be abused by their masters at will. It’s close enough.
No, it’s all are equal but not everyone can have the same job and responsibilities.
Except the high jobs and high responsiblilities are only available to men.
You know your arguments about this sound familiar to those used by pro-segregationits. I would say something about strange bedfellows, but since you’re agruing for thr same thing, I guess it’s not so strange.
Involuntary servitude
Involuntary servitude
Of course, you forget to mention how none of this forgiveness applies to women, who weren’t freed after six years/the debt being paid off, and could instead be forcibly taken as a wife.
And of course slaves taken from neighbouring countries weren’t to be returned or freed, they were slaves for life.
“Slaves” under voluntary servitude were even able to “seek a new master”. Basically find a new job.
Voluntary servitude? Maybe.
Were they able to get a new job under involuntary servitude? No. So slavery.
But indentured servitude with physical abuse is still slavery, and the bible supports it. No way around it.
There’s a saying that when democracy doesn’t favour conservatives, they don’t turn from conservatism, they’ll turn on democracy. As it turns out it also applies to christans: when christians find out the bible supports slavery, they don’t turn of the bible, instead they’ll start saying slavery was actually good. And lo and behold…
You really should listen to Dan Carlin’s podcasts. (Even if it’s not for the sake of this discussion, his content is unmatched)
I really don’t care about your religious podcast, especially one that tries to whitewash slavery.
It’s not like it comes with more pay like a job. It’s basically just more work.
It does come with pay, as well and power and influence.
Because that’s what you’re choosing to hear. You’re ignoring all the other things I’ve said.
I’m hearing reality and ignoring the delusional falsehoods you’re saying, yes.
You’re also ignoring the part where women slaves could be forced to marry their masters, where men could not.
But they were completely equal, right?
Anything with abuse is abuse and is abhorrent. The Bible says as much.
I didn’t say that for the part where it says how you can beat your slave.
It didn’t say that for the part about dashing babies into rocks.
It didn’t say that for child murder.
No, the Bible records it. The Bible also places a huge emphasis on showing love to your neighbour and your enemy.
Oh, I see. When something supports agenda then it’s the bible’s core message, but when something doesn’t look to good for it, then it’s just recorded in it, and also out of context.
How convenient.
If you haven’t noticed, the bible frequently contradicts itself.
No one here ever said slavery of any kind was good. Not in the slightest. You might be confusing your preconceptions for something I said.
You’re cherry picking without context.
For example, the quote about slaves in Exodus was not a teaching. It’s historical context about law at that time. That verse was intended to prevent brutalities towards slaves (which at the time were either hired labourers or in indebted servitude who literally sold themselves to pay off a debt, they were freed or “released” when the monetary value of their debt was paid off. It’s not the same as the term for slavery we commonly associate with the it today). The only time a slave was to be beaten was for punishment, like attacking another person, stealing, raping, etc. It’s not like they had the local Sheriff’s office they could call, so land owners (who were often days away from nearby settlements) would be the legal authority of that area.
The wording that if a slave survives for a day or two was used to determine intent, as it was considered that if someone survives for a couple days after being punished then something else was also the cause of death, and not a direct result of the punishment enacted.
Ultimately the point here is that this isn’t a “teaching” in any way. Some things in the Bible are just historical facts and context.
Timothy 2:12 (I know you mean 1 Timothy even though you didn’t specify, because there’s a 1 Timothy and a 2 Timothy) also needs context, because that scripture is about spiritual matters. It’s like a chain of command for the purposes of order. This is something that you cannot pull a single scripture out and use only that as an example. There are many other scriptures that expand on this. For example, a man/husband is supposed to treat his wife like his own body and like a “weaker vessel” (implying a delicate and gentle approach), and anyone who does not hates himself and God.
Corinthians 11:5-6 - (which Corinthians? There’s two of them) how is this torture? It’s just about head coverings, and one that’s often taken out of context. Verse 11 and 12 say *“Besides, in connection with the Lord, neither is woman separate from man nor is man separate from woman. 12 For just as the woman is from the man, so also the man is through the woman; but all things are from God.”
Verse 15 also says “For her hair is given to her instead of a covering”
Basically neither man or women are better than the other, both are from God and that’s all that matters.
Titus 2:9-10 - You could literally replace “slave” with employee and “master” with boss or CEO, and then no one would say boo. As I mentioned earlier, the term slave is not the dehumanizing one we often use. Its modern counterpart is very close to “employee”.
Colossians 3:22-24, Leviticus 25:44-46, Peter 2:18 - same argument, because the term slave in these verses are not what you are attributing to it.
Edit: clarified about indebted servitude being about paying off a debt
This is probably the worst abuse of the “but context!” argument I have ever seen. Consideration of context is one thing, but you are just making up a more palatable meaning because that’s what you want to see. There is no actual context that changes what these verses mean, and your charitable interpretation of the word 'slave" is actually removing the true historical context.
Context is king.
Absolutely not. The meaning of a single verse is meaningless without the broader context. Something that says “you must obey Jesus” means nothing until you understand *who" Jesus is.
I think you’re mis-applying a different historical context.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_slavery
“Broadly, the Biblical and Talmudic laws tended to consider slavery a form of contract between persons, theoretically reducible to voluntary slavery, unlike chattel slavery, where the enslaved person is legally rendered the personal property (chattel) of the slave owner.”
It’s not a teaching, it just explicitly tells people what to do and not to do. Makes sense.
Hired laborers and indentured servants whom you could beat and abuse, and had no freedom of their own. Hmm, I wonder if there’s a word for that…
The wording that if a slave survives for a day or two was used to determine intent, as it was considered that if someone survives for a couple days after being punished then something else was also the cause of death, and not a direct result of the punishment enacted.
It’s not a teaching, it just explicitly tells people what to do and not to do. Makes sense.
You’re very clever, congratulations.
You can give all the context you want, that’s sexism, plain and simple.
A chain of command you cannot change, that is not based on knowledge or experience, but on what’s between your legs.
Or not so clever, I guess.
We have this wonderful new technology called google. Feel free to use it.
Or not, since it was created by the devil of science.
Forcing women to shave their heads sure sounds like dominating to me…
Men aren’t forced to shave their hair, and using your analogy, they are always higheron the chain of command than women.
Except CEOs aren’t allowed to beat up employees, and employees are free to leave.
“Employees, be subject to your CEOs with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse.”
And all of this not even talking about the rampant homophobia, genocide, etc commanded in the bible
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_slavery
“Broadly, the Biblical and Talmudic laws tended to consider slavery a form of contract between persons, theoretically reducible to voluntary slavery, unlike chattel slavery, where the enslaved person is legally rendered the personal property (chattel) of the slave owner.”
“Ancient Israelite society allowed slavery; however, total domination of one human being by another was not permitted.[16][17] Rather, slavery in antiquity among the Israelites was closer to what would later be called indentured servitude.[15] Slaves were seen as an essential part of a Hebrew household.[18] In fact, there were cases in which, from a slave’s point of view, the stability of servitude under a family in which the slave was well-treated would have been preferable to economic freedom.”
“Although not prohibited, Jewish ownership of non-Jewish slaves was constrained by Rabbinic authorities since non-Jewish slaves were to be offered conversion to Judaism during their first 12-months term as slaves. If accepted, the slaves were to become Jews, hence redeemed immediately. If rejected, the slaves were to be sold to non-Jewish owners. Accordingly, the Jewish law produced a constant stream of Jewish converts with previous slave experience. Additionally, Jews were required to redeem Jewish slaves from non-Jewish owners, making them a privileged enslavement item, albeit temporary. The combination has made Jews less likely to participate in enslavement and slave trade.”
“The Torah forbids the return of runaway slaves who escape from their foreign land and their bondage and arrive in the Land of Israel. Furthermore, the Torah demands that such former slaves be treated equally to any other resident alien.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servitude
"Indentured servitude is a form of labor in which a person is contracted to work without salary for a specific number of years. The contract, called an “indenture”, may be entered “voluntarily” for purported eventual compensation or debt repayment, or it may be imposed “involuntarily” as a judicial punishment. "
Yes, there’s a lot more in that Wikipedia page, but Jewish history expands well past the Bible and the 1st century. I’m just focusing on the Biblical period.
Slavery pre-American colonial settlement is far more nuanced than people realize. Dan Carlin’s Hardcore History podcast goes into immense detail in the Humane Resources episode (and that’s “humans as resources” in the title).
Is it though? Because 1 Corinthians says "For just as the woman is from the man, so also the man is through the woman; but all things are from God.” Which is to say neither men or women are above the other, they are equal to God.
True, but an employee at a large company cannot become the CEO (yes, I know it’s “technically” possible, but how often does that happen?). I know you’ll disagree on this, and that’s fine, we can disagree. But my position is that this “order” isn’t oppressive in any way. There’s no privilege or power in the role (there isn’t supposed to be, but we know that it has been abused countless times). It’s only meant to be a role to be assign leadership to a clearly defined person in the family. A “leader” doesn’t control the people they are leading, they simply the person that gives guidance for the group as a whole. Anyways, we’re going to disagree on this.
I knew which Corinthians was being referenced. I was pointing out that OP keeps referencing scriptures without giving all the details. Which matters because they’ve been touting their expertise and deep knowledge in the topic.
Men (in ancient Israel) are required to do other things, like cut the tip of their genitals off.
Taking a single example is cherry-picking. There are many things that were required of both men and women, and people in all different stations.
Because in modern days we have extensive and well established legal codes and policing infrastructures. Back in the Bible on a farm being worked by many people, the closest settlement would have been many hours, if not days away. There was no local police station, no 911 or emergency services. Land owners were thus expected to be the ones enforcing the law on their land. We also have extensive and meticulous laws covering all kinds of topics, scenarios, and conditions that are recorded in explicit detail. Back then most people didn’t read, and if they did they definitely didn’t have any access to a copy of the law. As such laws were often simple and not complex so that the average person could grasp and remember them.
That being said, slavery in the Bible isn’t what you think it is (as I mentioned earlier in my comment). A slave would only receive such punishment if they did something extremely heinous, like murder someone.
Edit: formatting, clarification
What you forgot you mention about the wikipedia page, is that these are not facts, but quotes from a religious scholar.
A religious scholar, who would greatly benefit from people thinking of positively of his religion.
If google puts it on their wikipedia page that them avoiding hundreds of millions in taxes is in context a really good thing, would you believe them?
I don’t even need to respond to it, it just speaks for itself.
Yes. It’s literally “All of you are equal, some are just more equal than others”.
Ah, I see. “Seperate but equal”.
It is possible, and it does happen.
In fact, every employee can start their own company and become its CEO.
A more apt analogy would be, a company where white people can become managers and C-suite, but black people cannot.
Would you support this?
“The condition in which one person is owned as property by another and is under the owner’s control, especially in involuntary servitude.”
Yep, that fits.
I’ll never understand how people like you can sink to such levels, defending slavery.
And again, the rampant homophobia.
This assumes all religious scholars have a nefarious agenda. I don’t doubt some or many do, but no more so than the final population average. There are many who genuinely want to help others and believe in teaching and sharing peace.
Because you think “slavery” means the same thing across all time. That level of willful ignorance speaks for itself also.
No, it’s all are equal but not everyone can have the same job and responsibilities. Not everyone can be the owner of a company (unless you’re WestJet).
Just “equal”.
I did specify “large corporation” in my example. Thanks for ignoring that.
Involuntary servitude under the law (back in the era we’re talking about) had clear definitions. It was often invoked to collect a debt and could only be held until the debt was paid off, not longer. Captured non-Hebrew enemies were also sometimes put under involuntary servitude. But they were required to either convert, at which point they would be freed. Or else sold off to a non-Hebrew.
And I’ll never understand how people can have such reductionist ways of thinking. “Slavery”, as it’s used today, is technically “chattel slavery”, which is different. They have similar letters in English, but are not the same thing. Some translations even use different terms because the modern English word “slavery” has a different meaning. Indentured and voluntary servitude were commonplace back then. Today it isn’t. Although the relationship between an employee and employer share many of the same definitions. “Slaves” under voluntary servitude were even able to “seek a new master”. Basically find a new job. Such cruelty.
Well, this one clearly does, as he’s trying to whitewash slavery to make his religion look better. Seems pretty nefarious to me.
They are ot free to leave, and can be abused by their masters at will. It’s close enough.
Except the high jobs and high responsiblilities are only available to men.
You know your arguments about this sound familiar to those used by pro-segregationits. I would say something about strange bedfellows, but since you’re agruing for thr same thing, I guess it’s not so strange.
Of course, you forget to mention how none of this forgiveness applies to women, who weren’t freed after six years/the debt being paid off, and could instead be forcibly taken as a wife.
And of course slaves taken from neighbouring countries weren’t to be returned or freed, they were slaves for life.
Voluntary servitude? Maybe.
Were they able to get a new job under involuntary servitude? No. So slavery.
But indentured servitude with physical abuse is still slavery, and the bible supports it. No way around it.
There’s a saying that when democracy doesn’t favour conservatives, they don’t turn from conservatism, they’ll turn on democracy. As it turns out it also applies to christans: when christians find out the bible supports slavery, they don’t turn of the bible, instead they’ll start saying slavery was actually good. And lo and behold…
And of course the rampant homophobia.
deleted by creator
I really don’t care about your religious podcast, especially one that tries to whitewash slavery.
It does come with pay, as well and power and influence.
I’m hearing reality and ignoring the delusional falsehoods you’re saying, yes.
You’re also ignoring the part where women slaves could be forced to marry their masters, where men could not.
But they were completely equal, right?
I didn’t say that for the part where it says how you can beat your slave.
It didn’t say that for the part about dashing babies into rocks.
It didn’t say that for child murder.
Oh, I see. When something supports agenda then it’s the bible’s core message, but when something doesn’t look to good for it, then it’s just recorded in it, and also out of context.
How convenient.
If you haven’t noticed, the bible frequently contradicts itself.
Huh, so this wasn’t a quote used by you?
“In fact, there were cases in which, from a slave’s point of view, the stability of servitude under a family in which the slave was well-treated would have been preferable to economic freedom.”
deleted by creator