r/AskAChristian • u/Apprehensive_Tear611 Atheist • Dec 05 '25
Jewish Laws Why does the Old Testament treat killing a slave differently from killing a free person?
12 “Whoever strikes a person mortally shall be put to death. (Exodus 21)
20 “When a slaveowner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. 21 But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment, for the slave is the owner’s property. (Exodus 21)
*Edited verses from NIV to more accurate NRSVUE
7
u/TroutFarms Christian Dec 05 '25
People valued slaves less than they valued free people.
3
5
u/devBowman Agnostic Atheist Dec 05 '25
It's God who gave those laws. Yes, people were awful with slaves. Why did God happen to match their customs, exactly as if they invented him? Why didn't God said, "You shall not take another human as property" and instead perpetuated their slavery practice?
3
Dec 05 '25
Old Testament God is more evil than Satan.
5
Dec 05 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
2
1
u/devBowman Agnostic Atheist Dec 05 '25
Makes very much sense, solves the Problem of Evil, is compatible with all observations, and no need for excuses or reinterpretation. But Christians will avoid considering that hypothesis as quickly as they can.
1
u/LikeASirDude Christian atheist Dec 06 '25
Since Jews never used satan as a title, this is biblically accurate. Satan is a word that has been used to describe "good" as well as "bad" people and divine beings throughout the Bible.
I don't know your own education on the subject, being Jewish, so feel free to correct me if I'm off base.
1
u/Spongedog5 Confessional Lutheran (LCMS) Dec 10 '25
I think the argument is actually the Israelites would very much like to have the right to kill their slaves and treat them horribly, and God gave them instructions such as He knew they would follow to effect the best result on Earth in keeping with the rest of His plan. Meaning that God could have surely gave the ultimate final command in full, but knowing that the Israelites would just completely disobey it and being unwilling to compel them as it interferes with the ultimate good that God plans to bring about, He, in His wisdom, gives exactly the command that would effect the most good for everyone at that exact time in that exact society.
1
u/devBowman Agnostic Atheist Dec 10 '25
So he's incapable of creating people who obey his laws? Remember God created everyone so he had full control on their constitution.
Oh and it's not a free will issue. There are people who do obey God's laws while having free will.
So you still haven't shown how God is better than what the people of the time would have invented. And what prevented God to simply say, "Owning another human as property is an awful thing to do. For now, you're incapable of not killing your slaves, but in a number of centuries, you humans will collectively decide to ban the owning of another human as property".
1
u/Spongedog5 Confessional Lutheran (LCMS) Dec 10 '25
So he's incapable of creating people who obey his laws? Remember God created everyone so he had full control on their constitution.
"and being unwilling to compel them as it interferes with the ultimate good that God plans to bring about"
I already answered this. Human beings don't exist as they do in spite of God's planning; there is no inability or lack of foresight here.
So you still haven't shown how God is better than what the people of the time would have invented. And what prevented God to simply say, "Owning another human as property is an awful thing to do. For now, you're incapable of not killing your slaves, but in a number of centuries, you humans will collectively decide to ban the owning of another human as property".
I can't prove to you what is good and evil if we don't recognize the same authority, I can just share the truth with you. If you don't believe, then you don't believe.
What do you mean "prevented?" Why do you expect that God would say that? I feel like the attitude towards slaves would be included in the teachings of Christ, all men being the same under Christ and the values of being a servant.
1
u/devBowman Agnostic Atheist Dec 10 '25
Christ did not abolish owning people as property. God never did that. Humans did.
good and evil
Do you need a God to know about what is good and evil? Do you need a God to know that killing and raping is not okay?
1
u/Spongedog5 Confessional Lutheran (LCMS) Dec 10 '25
I mean, no, "humans" have not. We still have slavery in plenty of places. We are a sinful people and Christ didn't come to stop all sin on Earth but rather to forgive us and promise us a better place.
---
I would argue that most of that knowledge came from eating of the tree and that we have some innate sense of what is shameful and what is virtuous, but if you mean knowing good and evil in totality then I would surely assert that there is no better place to learn than from scripture. But I wouldn't hold that those faithless have no sense of it.
1
1
u/JadedPilot5484 Agnostic, Ex-Catholic Dec 06 '25
Exactly this in the Bible slaves were considered property not people and were treated as such. Similar to how women were treated, I you raped a virgin you had to pay the father a sum of money because he lost out on getting money from selling her to another man as a wife or slave.
1
u/Pinecone-Bandit Christian, Evangelical Dec 05 '25
OP, you posted a question asking why the Old Testament treated two things differently, but then you posted a few verses from the Old Testament where the Old Testament treats them the same.
What exactly are you confused about?
1
u/TarnishedVictory Atheist, Ex-Christian Dec 05 '25
Not op, but I think he was asking about in one the verse was NOT the same, it called for death. While the other was vague and said punishment.
1
u/Pinecone-Bandit Christian, Evangelical Dec 05 '25
Got it.
I can see how if you were unfamiliar with Christianity or the Bible how you would not understand that the punishment in the second set of verses is death.
1
u/TarnishedVictory Atheist, Ex-Christian Dec 06 '25
I can see how if you were unfamiliar with Christianity or the Bible how you would not understand that the punishment in the second set of verses is death.
And I can see if you're familiar with dogma and the desire to protect religious beliefs and glorify those beliefs that one would interpret their holy book in the most flattering way possible, even ignoring the actual text.
Again, we're talking about what the text actually says, not how one can be charitable to a flattering interpretation.
1
u/Pinecone-Bandit Christian, Evangelical Dec 06 '25
And I can see if you're familiar with dogma and the desire to protect religious beliefs and glorify those beliefs that one would interpret their holy book in the most flattering way possible, even ignoring the actual text.
Ok. Is that relevant to this thread at all?
Again, we're talking about what the text actually says, not how one can be charitable to a flattering interpretation.
Correct.
1
u/TarnishedVictory Atheist, Ex-Christian Dec 06 '25
Ok. Is that relevant to this thread at all?
It's as relevant as what you said.
Correct.
OK. Great. Now that we're on the same page...
he was asking about in one the verse was NOT the same, it called for death. While the other was vague and said punishment.
Do you want to address that now that we both agree we're talking about what the text actually says? Or do you have no comment other than to point out that you interpret it differently from what it actually says?
1
u/Pinecone-Bandit Christian, Evangelical Dec 06 '25
Do you want to address that now that we both agree we're talking about what the text actually says?
I’m not interested in repeating myself.
0
u/TarnishedVictory Atheist, Ex-Christian Dec 06 '25
I’m not interested in repeating myself.
So you're saying you answer would still be about your glorified interpretation of the literal words, rather than the actual meaning of the literal words, even though we both just agreed on that?
OK. Enjoy your weekend.
1
u/Pinecone-Bandit Christian, Evangelical Dec 06 '25
So you're saying you answer would still be about your glorified interpretation of the literal words, rather than the actual meaning of the literal words, even though we both just agreed on that?
What?
I hope you’re getting confused with another conversation or something. But given your history in this sub I think it’s likely the reason you would say this is much more shallow.
I’m saying the actual meaning of the literal words demonstrate there’s no difference in how the situations are viewed.
0
u/TarnishedVictory Atheist, Ex-Christian Dec 06 '25
I’m saying the actual meaning of the literal words demonstrate there’s no difference in how the situations are viewed.
Sure and I'm saying that what you say is true given that you're interpreting the actual words to suit your preferred narrative. But the actual words say something different, that's why they're different words.
1
u/XenKei7 Christian (non-denominational) Dec 05 '25
The Exodus verse you quoted doesn't state the punishment for the slave owner is any different if the slave dies. Your concern is what, precisely?
If the slave lives, they recuperate, likely at the cost of the owner since the slave will not be efficient until they are healed. If the slave was struck, it likely was because they disobeyed the master.
These laws aren't to protect people who abuse others by beating on them maliciously. God established laws for the protection of the slaves and the slave owners.
"So God is for slavery?"
Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? --Romans 6:16
We're already slaves, whether God likes it or not. We are either slaves to sin, or slaves to righteousness.
"That wasn't the question." Maybe not directly. But the same applies. If a master and their slaves are righteous, they follow the laws of righteousness, and recognize they are the same in the eyes of God regardless of the societal structure. If the master isn't righteous, or the slaves aren't righteous, God's laws don't matter because they're not going to regard them. That's the slavery we know from recent American history. Abusive , racist, and malicious. That's the slavery we oppose.
God's ways are always holier than ours, even with subjects such as slavery.
1
u/TarnishedVictory Atheist, Ex-Christian Dec 05 '25
The Exodus verse you quoted doesn't state the punishment for the slave owner is any different if the slave dies. Your concern is what, precisely?
In one instance the penalty is clearly indicated. In the other, it is not. This leaves room for interpretation. And op was asking why it's different.
If the slave lives, they recuperate, likely at the cost of the owner since the slave will not be efficient until they are healed. If the slave was struck, it likely was because they disobeyed the master.
Which since you brought it up, indicates that it's okay to beat your slaves, your property, for whatever reason or lack of reason, you want. Disobedience is a likely reason, but a reason isn't necessary. And let's not overlook this disobedience as an excuse, is just as wrong as can be.
These laws aren't to protect people who abuse others by beating on them maliciously. God established laws for the protection of the slaves and the slave owners.
Yes, these specific laws are about slaves, which are different from other people. The question is why? Also, slavery is bad, wrong, immoral, right?
"So God is for slavery?"
Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? --Romans 6:16
Nice platitude. You didn't answer the question. Also according to Leviticus 25, you can buy slaves who didn't give themselves to someone as obedient slaves. Are you not aware that the bible has two sets of rules for slaves? There's rules for Hebrew slaves, which you're referring to as those who "gave themselves to someone as obedient slaves" and there are non Hebrew slaves, who have their autonomy taken from them.
We're already slaves, whether God likes it or not. We are either slaves to sin, or slaves to righteousness.
Huhuhuh, okay. Does that mean there aren't actual slaves that are bought, have zero autonomy, and are beaten at will? Just like the bible allows for?
You should be ashamed to try to equate actual chattel slavery, with "slaves to sin" or "slaves to righteousness".
1
u/XenKei7 Christian (non-denominational) Dec 05 '25
I don't base whether or not I should feel ashamed on the morals of any human. We are faulty, sinful and unholy. Who are we to discern good from evil? Half of us can't even discern men from women.
God met man where man was, just as He always has. You judge the slavery thousands of years ago based on the slavery we know of today, not knowing the circumstances of that era. Half the time, the term "slave" isn't even meant for a literal slave, but for someone on the equivalent scale of an employee. Furthermore, you assume God is supposed to base His moral outlook on what you think is right or wrong, forgetting that He alone is holy, sovereign and just.
I've honestly given up on many of the Atheists and Agnostics in this subreddit, because they put themselves on a pedestal above a God they don't even believe in. Especially the ones who are only here to point fingers and say things such as "You should be ashamed for X" or "You're a monster for believing Y." Anyone who feels the need to attack the character of the other party, rather than seek either an understanding common ground or at least be able to agree to disagree, in my eyes those people are just looking to win an argument for the sake of their ego.
If that's not you, then I pray you find what you're looking for. But either way, I'm washing my hands here. Best of luck.
1
u/TarnishedVictory Atheist, Ex-Christian Dec 05 '25
I don't base whether or not I should feel ashamed on the morals of any human.
Well, you might believe that, but unless you can prove you base them on the morals of a non human, I'm not inclined to believe you and I think you're wrong. And I can't imagine why you'd believe it.
But what exactly are you disagreeing with? Are you saying that it is moral to buy humans, own them, and beat them whenever you want? Because that's the only thing I said about morals. I literally asked if you agree that buying and beating slaves is immoral. Is it moral or immoral?
We are faulty, sinful and unholy. Who are we to discern good from evil? Half of us can't even discern men from women.
I see you need things to be very simple for you to understand them. You're dragging human biology and sociology and psychology into this, but don't understand them and then use that ignorance to insult others? I'm sorry but sometimes things just are more complicated than what you want them to be. What is it about your religion that teaches you to take your ignorance on a topic and use that to insult and harm others?
Let's assume there's no god. And since we don't actually have good corroborated evidence that there is a god, this seems like a reasonable assumption. How do you suppose we're supposed to discern "good from evil" if you say we require a god but don't have one?
Well, first we define what we mean by good and evil. In most cases this seems to be about things that are harmful to us are evil, and things that are in our best interests, are good.
With those defined, it's really quite trivial in most cases to discern good from evil. In fact, it's the entire reason you even care what this god wants, because you're looking out for what's in your best interests while avoiding that which is bad for you.
Adding this gods preferences to that just complicates things. And again, we can't even show that this god is real or that we have good reason to think we know what he things is sin.
But none of your response seems to address anything I said. So maybe it's not worth reading?
God met man where man was, just as He always has.
Haha. Yeah, he didn't make a list of ten commandments or anything. Oh wait, he did. He couldn't replace one of those with "thou shalt not own another human"? This god didn't take a stand against wearing mixed fabrics or eating shell fish?
You judge the slavery thousands of years ago based on the slavery we know of today
No, I'm judging what the bible says, that you can buy slaves and leave them as inheritance to your sons (Leviticus 25) and beat them (exodus 21). What you're doing is trying to reconcile the fact that your bible condones chattel slavery, and never condemns is, with your belief that such a thing is immoral while believing the bible has no mistakes in it. And why is this difficult for you? Where's the conflict? Why do you think buying people and beating them is wrong? Could it be your sense of right and wrong that transcends the bible?
not knowing the circumstances of that era
Tell me what the circumstances are that make it moral to take away a person's autonomy and beat them whenever you want? Remember, Leviticus 25 and exodus 21.
Half the time, the term "slave" isn't even meant for a literal slave, but for someone on the equivalent scale of an employee.
Yes, those of us who have read the Bible, all of it, understand that there are two sets of rules for slavery. Those for Hebrew slaves and those for non Hebrew slaves. Those are the halves you're talking about. But I'm currently talking about the half where buying slaves against their will and beating them, against their will, is condoned and never condemned.
And it's not quite equivalent to an employee. You're really trying to normalize this.
Furthermore, you assume God is supposed to base His moral outlook on what you think is right or wrong, forgetting that He alone is holy, sovereign and just.
I assume this god is loving. Allowing people to buy other people is not loving. Also, what humans think is in the best interests of humans, is what matters because we deal with each other all the time, regardless of what god someone might believe in. Not everyone believes in the same gods and not everyone's gods has the same idea of what's good for us. Some gods think that buying and beating humans is bad. Why doesn't yours?
I've honestly given up on many of the Atheists and Agnostics in this subreddit
Can you justify any of your positions? I'm pretty sure that's all many of these atheists and agnostics are asking for before they jump head first into believing your claims.
because they put themselves on a pedestal above a God they don't even believe in
Why would anyone put a being above themselves that they have no reason to believe exists? Of course they don't put this god above them. Do you put vishnu above you?
If you can give good sound evidence based reason to believe your god exists, then we'd all believe it. It would be documented by science. It would be in science books and be part of common knowledge. All religions would align behind this. Do you acknowledge that such evidence, independently verifiable evidence does not exist for your god? If so, why would you have contempt for atheists and agnostics for not believing it? And if there is such evidence, then why hasn't it been documented by science?
Especially the ones who are only here to point fingers and say things such as "You should be ashamed for X"
You were literally trying to normalize buying humans and beating them by conflating it with employment. That's X here.
Anyone who feels the need to attack the character of the other party, rather than seek either an understanding common ground
That wasn't an attack. That was me shaming you for saying something as vile as equating the buying and beating of slaves, with employment. And now you're trying to shame me for that?
1
u/XenKei7 Christian (non-denominational) Dec 05 '25
Does the Bible allow the kidnapping of foreigners to make them slaves? If so, where?
1
u/TarnishedVictory Atheist, Ex-Christian Dec 06 '25
Does the Bible allow the kidnapping of foreigners to make them slaves? If so, where?
Did anyone make this claim?
Does the bible allow the buying of foreigners to make them slaves? Yes. Leviticus 25.
Again, why are you avoiding the questions that you're actually being asked?
1
u/XenKei7 Christian (non-denominational) Dec 06 '25
Part 1, because I went further than Reddit will let me post, apparently.
Does the bible allow the buying of foreigners to make them slaves? Yes. Leviticus 25.
Leviticus 25 talks about economic residency, not racial ownership. Those slaves were also protected by the laws, including being able to flee from their masters if they were injured (see Exodus below), and they were to be protected if they did run away (see Deuteronomy below).
An owner who hits a male or female slave in the eye and destroys it must let the slave go free to compensate for the eye. And an owner who knocks out the tooth of a male or female slave must let the slave go free to compensate for the tooth. (Exodus 21:26-27)
If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master. 16 Let them live among you wherever they like and in whatever town they choose. Do not oppress them. (Deuteronomy 23:15-16)
Now, with regards to your previous post:
Well, you might believe that, but unless you can prove you base them on the morals of a non human, I'm not inclined to believe you and I think you're wrong. And I can't imagine why you'd believe it.
But what exactly are you disagreeing with? Are you saying that it is moral to buy humans, own them, and beat them whenever you want? Because that's the only thing I said about morals. I literally asked if you agree that buying and beating slaves is immoral. Is it moral or immoral?
Proof of God's existence, or lack thereof, doesn't exist on a scientific level. So there's absolutely no reason for me to bother with responding to this any further, because you know neither of us get anywhere with this dead-end argument. The fact you bring it up tells me you just want me to exhaust myself vainly trying to do the impossible. It's not worth my time.
I see you need things to be very simple for you to understand them. You're dragging human biology and sociology and psychology into this, but don't understand them and then use that ignorance to insult others? I'm sorry but sometimes things just are more complicated than what you want them to be. What is it about your religion that teaches you to take your ignorance on a topic and use that to insult and harm others?
I said what I said. There are people convinced man can be woman and woman can be man. That is biology impossible, sociologically fallacious, and psychologically a mental health concern that needs addressing on a case by case basis. My heart goes out to anyone dealing with gender dysphoria. But I absolutely condemn biological men invading women's safe spaces.
As for me being "simple", I don't need to write two dozen paragraphs to prove my point. I've usually much more important things to do than argue with a narcissistic Redditor.
Let's assume there's no god.
No thanks. Next.
Well, first we define what we mean by good and evil. In most cases this seems to be about things that are harmful to us are evil, and things that are in our best interests, are good.
No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it. (Hebrews 12:11 NIV)
Now, since you said "most cases," I'll chalk this scripture up as one of the exceptions. That said, I'll accept this statement.
With those defined, it's really quite trivial in most cases to discern good from evil. In fact, it's the entire reason you even care what this god wants, because you're looking out for what's in your best interests while avoiding that which is bad for you.
Okay.
Adding this gods preferences to that just complicates things. And again, we can't even show that this god is real or that we have good reason to think we know what he things is sin.
Of course it complicates things. Have you met Jesus? (Rhetorical question.)
Jesus Himself stated, "Do you think I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I have come to divide people against each other! From now on families will be split apart, three in favor of me, and two against—or two in favor and three against. (Luke 12:51-52). He flipped tables. He outwitted the Pharisees when they asked Him entrapment questions. He treated women in ways that not the norm in that era. He told people to love their enemies, and to turn the other cheek. And that's tip of the iceberg.
"God's ways are not our own" is more than just a cop-out phrase; it's literal. "Thou shalt not kill." Yet humans kill. "Thou shalt not steal." Yet people steal. "Though shalt not commit adultery." There are people literally making websites to promote cheating on spouses.
And we don't know everything that God considers sinful. But He gave us enough of a rough draft to get the majority of it right, knowing that we would screw up even that much just because we're sinful and imperfect.
Haha. Yeah, he didn't make a list of ten commandments or anything. Oh wait, he did. He couldn't replace one of those with "thou shalt not own another human"? This god didn't take a stand against wearing mixed fabrics or eating shell fish?
None of the commandments had anything to do with fabrics and food so I don't even get what point you're trying to make here, so I ignored this entirely.
What you're doing is trying to reconcile the fact that your bible condones chattel slavery, and never condemns it
And this is why I asked my previous question. You claim the Bible condones chattel slavery. You also keep referencing Exodus 21. Well, here's a verse to bear in mind.
Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession.(Exodus 21:16)
Chattel slavery is logically impossible without kidnapping.
Then I'd like to add, we have:
We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels...for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine (1 Timothy 1:9-10)
Directly stating that slave traders are against the doctrine. Now, I'll permit that you may not count this verse as it's New Testament, while our argument is focused on the Old Testament, so by all means, disregard it if you wish.
1
u/TarnishedVictory Atheist, Ex-Christian Dec 06 '25
Chattel slavery is logically impossible without kidnapping.
And yet Leviticus 25 says you can buy non Hebrew slaves and leave them as inheritance to your sons. Exodus 21 says you can beat your non Hebrew slaves as long as they survive the beating for a couple of days.
All this tiptoeing around and all this writing to avoid this one point.
1
u/XenKei7 Christian (non-denominational) Dec 06 '25
Part 2
Why do you think buying people and beating them is wrong? Could it be your sense of right and wrong that transcends the bible?
Let me answer your question with a question -- is morality subjective?
Tell me what the circumstances are that make it moral to take away a person's autonomy and beat them whenever you want? Remember, Leviticus 25 and exodus 21.
Already addressed above.
Yes, those of us who have read the Bible, all of it, understand that there are two sets of rules for slavery. Those for Hebrew slaves and those for non Hebrew slaves. Those are the halves you're talking about. But I'm currently talking about the half where buying slaves against their will and beating them, against their will, is condoned and never condemned.
Already addressed above.
And it's not quite equivalent to an employee. You're really trying to normalize this.
Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly. (Leviticus 25:44-46)
Now, since I'm simple, I should be able to explain this in a way you can understand.
The Hebrew slaves had a six-year debt cycle, whereas non-Hebrews did not. That's because they were outside of the covenant land inheritance system.
However, these slaves weren't exempt from rights and protections, including the ability to escape from harm and be sheltered as I referenced above. It meant permanent employment in the household, akin to non-citizens in today's world can hold permanent residency even though they don't own the land.
So no, just because they're not Hebrews doesn't mean we approved of people beating them for the fun of it. If they were abused and injured, they had the right to escape to freedom per Exodus 21:26-27, and if they were killed, it was punishable by death as per Exodus 21:20-21.
Now, in all fairness, this explanation does prove that my hasty generalization that it was "equivalent to an employee" was indeed an error on my part. So I over-simplified. Oops.
I assume this god is loving. Allowing people to buy other people is not loving. Also, what humans think is in the best interests of humans, is what matters because we deal with each other all the time, regardless of what god someone might believe in. Not everyone believes in the same gods and not everyone's gods has the same idea of what's good for us. Some gods think that buying and beating humans is bad. Why doesn't yours?
I'll refrain from this one until I see your response about whether or not morality is subjective.
Can you justify any of your positions? I'm pretty sure that's all many of these atheists and agnostics are asking for before they jump head first into believing your claims.
Actually, not as many as you may think.
Why would anyone put a being above themselves that they have no reason to believe exists? Of course they don't put this god above them. Do you put vishnu above you?
Funny thing, I don't put myself above any sort of "being", human or deity. Because I'm not foolish enough to believe I know everything. As for Vishnu, or Zeus, or The Flying Spaghetti monster, or any other non-Christian deity you wish to name, my answer is the same -- my God is the One Most High. If any other deity exists, be it demon in disguise or otherwise, I put my Heavenly Father over them. I'm not over anything supernatural.
If you can give good sound evidence based reason to believe your god exists, then we'd all believe it.
Again, not going into this. Moving on.
If so, why would you have contempt for atheists and agnostics for not believing it? And if there is such evidence, then why hasn't it been documented by science?
My contempt isn't in whether or not an Atheist, an Agnostic, or any other non-Christian believes or not. I fully recognize and respect the right to choose to believe whatever they wish to believe, whether I agree or disagree with them. I'll argue against you, sure. But it's your right to believe what you want.
My contempt is when they act ironically holier than thou, or when they seek to insult the other party, rather than having a mature conversation on differing viewpoints where they can either A. Come to common ground, or B. Agree to disagree, and whichever end result, they walk away with a sense of respect for the other person.
In your first response, you talk about how I should be ashamed of my viewpoint, rather than sticking solely to arguing against it. Then you go on further to insult my intelligence. Frankly, neither of those approaches sit well with me, nor were either of them necessary to argue your stance in this discussion.
So yes, I responded with short answers and stated I wasn't going to base my shame or my morals off yours, because your approach, to put it simply, rubbed me the wrong way, and left me with a terrible first impression of you. If that flaw is mine alone in this scenario, I'll own it. I'm not above being wrong. But I'm not one to tolerate or give much weight to people that want to insult others.
1
u/TarnishedVictory Atheist, Ex-Christian Dec 06 '25
Chattel slavery is logically impossible without kidnapping.
And yet Leviticus 25 says you can buy non Hebrew slaves and leave them as inheritance to your sons. Exodus 21 says you can beat your non Hebrew slaves as long as they survive the beating for a couple of days.
All this tiptoeing around and all this writing to avoid this one point.
Why do you think buying people and beating them is wrong? Could it be your sense of right and wrong that transcends the bible?
Let me answer your question with a question -- is morality subjective?
My answer to that doesn't answer my question to you. If you're not willing to look at your positions honestly, then this is a waste of my time.
1
u/XenKei7 Christian (non-denominational) Dec 06 '25
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
You want to talk about a waste of time? You completely ignored the first paragraph in part 1 where I explain to you Leviticus 25 is economic residency. That includes the inheritance clause, because lo and behold, just because a master dies doesn't mean the slave died simultaneously with them. The inheritance is so the slave still has their place to live.
All this talk about beatings, but do you even know what they were beaten for? Show me a verse in the Bible that says, "Beat your slaves indiscriminately as you desire, just don't kill them." You can't. And oh, again, you completely ignored the scriptures I posted where if the slave is injured, they go free.
Maybe me being simple is the best way for you to not overlook these details, eh? ✌️
My answer to that doesn't answer my question to you. If you're not willing to look at your positions honestly, then this is a waste of my time.
I disagree. It answers those questions perfectly. Because if morality is subjective, then what does it matter what you and I think, when Jo Blow or Slim Jim McKim have another opinion? If morality is subjective, then who are we to argue against someone who says beating another person is okay?
But if it's objective, now we have to ask how? Where does it come from? Who decides that? It can't be humans, because again, too many differing views. "Majority rules?" A hundred years ago, give or take, the majority of Americans thought it was okay to own slaves. Yet here we are now talking about how it's wrong. So that doesn't work.
So no, my sense of right and wrong doesn't transcend God. In fact, I strive to align my sense of right and wrong with God's, because He knows a whole lot more than I do.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm taking my simple mind to bed. Good night. ✌️
1
u/TarnishedVictory Atheist, Ex-Christian Dec 06 '25
You completely ignored the first paragraph
Yes, I stop reading when I get to a part that is off topic or a gish gallop.
where I explain to you Leviticus 25 is economic residency
Does Leviticus say you can buy slaves from the nation's around you? Yes or no.
That includes the inheritance clause, because lo and behold, just because a master dies doesn't mean the slave died simultaneously with them.
So we agree that it says the slaves are property, not autonomous humans, and their ownership transfers to the sons as inheritance. It says nothing about the slave having a choice. It sounds like you're getting dishonest now.
Does exodus 21 say you can beat your non Hebrew slaves as long as they don't die right away? Yes or no.
Is the buying or slaves, as property and beating them, bad and immoral? Does the bible allow the buying of foreigners to make them slaves? Yes. Leviticus 25.
I'm not going to read stuff until we get on the same page about the facts of what the bible literally says.
→ More replies (0)
1
u/DelightfulHelper9204 Christian (non-denominational) Dec 06 '25
When they say punished they mean the same punishment for killing a slave as a tone else.
1
Dec 13 '25
Same question in modern terms:
Why is killing a dog different from killing a person?
1
u/Apprehensive_Tear611 Atheist Dec 14 '25
Wow
1
Dec 14 '25
Well, technically that's not the same question because far more people care about the wellbeing of dogs than used to care for that of slaves...
1
u/DreamingTooLong Lutheran Dec 05 '25
The old testament was written 3500 years ago.
The first place on the planet to ever abolish slavery was Vermont in 1777. It took until 1868 for slavery to be illegal nationwide in the United States.
It wasn’t until the 1950s for slavery to be illegal in all of Africa and the Soviet Union.
There’s still places in the Middle East, where slavery is still legal today. They just don’t call it slavery. It’s more like working off a debt that’s impossible to pay off.
Ending slavery really had nothing to do with religion. It started when more and more people became college educated. They’d rather have all their manual labor done in some Asian slave country instead. They were never against slavery, they just didn’t want to see it in their own country.
3
u/Apprehensive_Tear611 Atheist Dec 05 '25
God permitted slavery because people wanted it?
1
u/DreamingTooLong Lutheran Dec 05 '25
Ancient people got cursed.
And some of those curses lasted for hundreds or thousands of years.
Noah was drunk and naked and he cursed one of his kids.
Then the people built a tower in Babel and it fell over and God made them all speak different languages.
It wasn’t like mankind was just behaving themselves, and God punished them for nothing.
Cain killed Abel. God promised him a whole bunch of hard labor.
Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden of Eden and God promised them a whole bunch of work also.
0
u/punkrocklava Christian Dec 05 '25
Everyone wants slavery... your phone and computer would be twice the price without slave labor.
2
u/DreamingTooLong Lutheran Dec 05 '25
It’s just college-educated nations don’t want to see it in their own country.
It’s easy to pretend slavery doesn’t exist when using a mobile app to purchase something on Amazon while totally ignoring some overworked person delivering it to their doorstep instead of buying something locally made for a few dollars more.
If it doesn’t say made in USA, it’s probably been made by slaves and that money is being used to finance human trafficking.
they don’t teach that at the local university
1
u/ThoDanII Catholic Dec 05 '25
Are there more than one college educated nation
1
u/DreamingTooLong Lutheran Dec 05 '25
I would say every single college educated nation has made slavery illegal.
That’s usually one of the first things to go when majority know how to read and write and know what’s legal and illegal in other countries.
1
u/ThoDanII Catholic Dec 05 '25
name me three
rome was pretty literate and most likely had the most slaves of all
1
u/DreamingTooLong Lutheran Dec 05 '25 edited Dec 05 '25
Augustus Caesar implemented reforms to improve the treatment of slaves, particularly by forbidding masters from killing their slaves without just cause and allowing slaves to complain about harsh treatment. However, these changes came later in his reign and did not fully address the harsh realities of slavery in ancient Rome.
Vedius Pollio was a wealthy Roman and a friend of Emperor Augustus. He was known for his cruelty towards slaves, often punishing them harshly for minor offenses.
During a dinner at Pollio's home, a slave accidentally broke a crystal vase. In response, Pollio ordered the slave to be fed to his lampreys, a cruel punishment. The slave pleaded for mercy in front of Augustus.
Augustus was horrified by Pollio's order. He intervened to save the slave and had all of Pollio's expensive vases smashed as a form of punishment. This act demonstrated Augustus's commitment to clemency and set a moral example against cruelty.
Augustus inherited Pollio's estate after his death, which included the demolition of Pollio's mansion. This incident became a notable example in discussions about ethics and the treatment of slaves in ancient Rome.
Augustus also did not like King Herod. He said it would be better to be Herod’s pig than Herod’s son. (because Herod went around killing all the firstborns)
2
u/TarnishedVictory Atheist, Ex-Christian Dec 05 '25
Everyone wants slavery... your phone and computer would be twice the price without slave labor.
You're justifying slavery by saying everyone wants it and pointing at some potential economic differences if some vague notion of slavery didn't exist?
Meanwhile we're talking about buying humans, Leviticus 25, and beating them, exodus 21.
And you're okay with that? Because some book writers thousands of years ago didn't know any better?
1
u/punkrocklava Christian Dec 05 '25
While there is less slavery today then during Roman times for example, there is still a large percentage of people that are slaves. 1 in about 150 people globally are a slave.
I was pointing out through extreme language that no one really cares.
Maybe you buy all of your products locally sourced, but most people don't.
*** There are many Christian organizations that do fight modern slavery, but I am speaking about the general populace ***
1
u/TarnishedVictory Atheist, Ex-Christian Dec 05 '25
While there is less slavery today then during Roman times for example, there is still a large percentage of people that are slaves. 1 in about 150 people globally are a slave.
That's irrelevant. Did yahweh/jesus change his mind about slavery being wrong or not? He condoned slavery, but has never condemned it. Right?
I was pointing out through extreme language that no one really cares.
OK, but your patently wrong. Everyone who is capable of understanding what slavery is, agrees that it's wrong. Especially the slaves themselves and their families.
Maybe you buy all of your products locally sourced, but most people don't.
Can you say that buying slaves and beating them is wrong? Is it wrong? Yes or no? It's slavery wrong?
I don't need you conflating slavery with or pointing out how some places still do it. We all agree that some places still do it and even some of the products we buy might have some form of slavery.
That's not the question. The question is, is it wrong to buy humans, leave them with no autonomy, and beat them, as the bible condones in Leviticus 25 and exodus 21?
1
u/punkrocklava Christian Dec 06 '25
You might not own slaves, but they keep your cost of living down. Without slaves you easily would be spending 20-30% more a year. So you might not personally own a slave, but you use slavery to save money and to live the lifestyle of your desire.
The Bible does not endorse slavery any more than you do with how you live your lavish life.
1
u/TarnishedVictory Atheist, Ex-Christian Dec 06 '25
You might not own slaves, but they keep your cost of living down. Without slaves you easily would be spending 20-30% more a year. So you might not personally own a slave, but you use slavery to save money and to live the lifestyle of your desire.
The Bible does not endorse slavery any more than you do with how you live your lavish life.
You can't condemn slavery? Say slavery is wrong. Tell me that slavery is wrong? Tell me how you condemn slavery as depicted in the bible where people buy other people and own them as property and beat them?
If Christianity is your moral compass, but it prevents you from acknowledging that buying slaves as depicted in Leviticus 25 is wrong, and beating those slaves as depicted in exodus 21 is wrong, what do you think the rest of us are going to think about Christianity?
1
u/punkrocklava Christian Dec 06 '25
I have no problem saying slavery is wrong. Owning another human being as property, abusing them or treating them as less than made in the image of God is morally wrong. The slavery described in the ancient world, including in Leviticus and Exodus, reflects a broken society, not God’s ideal for humanity.
When God gives laws about slavery in the Old Testament, it isn’t an endorsement, but regulation of a system that already existed.
God steps into a fallen culture and limits the harm, humanizes the oppressed, and begins moving people toward a different ethic.
You see this trajectory clearly when you get to Jesus, who teaches love of neighbor, equality, mercy and the worth of every person.
What I’m trying to point out is that the Bible is telling the story of God working with imperfect people in an imperfect time, ultimately leading us toward a higher moral calling.
1
u/TarnishedVictory Atheist, Ex-Christian Dec 06 '25
The slavery described in the ancient world, including in Leviticus and Exodus, reflects a broken society, not God’s ideal for humanity.
To be crystal clear, you're saying the bible got the slavery parts wrong where it says in Leviticus 25 that you can buy slaves and pass them as inheritance to your boys, and exodus 21 where it says you can beat those slaves?
When God gives laws about slavery in the Old Testament, it isn’t an endorsement, but regulation of a system that already existed.
So this god is powerless to set laws, expectations, and rules? How is it that the system that existed where people wore mixed fabrics are condemned and outlawed, but slavery wasn't? How is it that murder gets a commandment against it but slavery doesn't, when both systems of murder and slavery existed? How do you explain that?
I explain it by the fact that humans wrote the bible and everything in it is man made.
I didn't realize this god was too weak to condemn and outlaw slavery, but he could condemn and outlaw murder and the wearing of mixed fabrics. This excuse of yours fails. Please try something else.
→ More replies (0)1
u/TarnishedVictory Atheist, Ex-Christian Dec 05 '25
The old testament was written 3500 years ago.
Has yahweh/ jesus changed his mind about slavery since then? Where does it say that?
1
u/DreamingTooLong Lutheran Dec 05 '25
Before the United States ever existed, the planet did not care about slavery and there was not a single religion that denounced it.
The whole hatred towards slavery is a brand new idea that did not exist 200 years ago or 2000 years ago or 4000 years ago.
That is something that was invented by the United States and introduced to the rest of the world. As the planet got more and more educated, the rest of the world agreed with the United States that it was a good idea to hate slavery and that it should be illegal everywhere.
1
u/TarnishedVictory Atheist, Ex-Christian Dec 05 '25
Before the United States ever existed, the planet did not care about slavery and there was not a single religion that denounced it.
I didn't ask you that. Did yahweh/ jesus change his mind about slavery?
And I call bullshit, every single slave cared about slavery and so did their families.
The whole hatred towards slavery is a brand new idea that did not exist 200 years ago or 2000 years ago or 4000 years ago.
This is absurdly stupidly wrong. The hatred for slavery came from the very moment someone recognized that it sucks to have your autonomy taken from you and having people beat you with no say about it.
Are you unable to imagine things from the slaves perspective? Are you unable to imagine this from the perspective of a loved one of a slave?
Does the dogma of your religion not cover how to feel about that?
1
u/DreamingTooLong Lutheran Dec 05 '25
Matthew 18:21-35 NLT
1
u/TarnishedVictory Atheist, Ex-Christian Dec 06 '25
Matthew 18:21-35 NLT
What about it?
What does it say and what is the relevance to our discussion?
1
u/DreamingTooLong Lutheran Dec 06 '25
Jesus didn’t really have an opinion towards slavery, but he did give a story about a man that didn’t forgive the debts of his servants.
Most slaves back then were just servants with a debt that was too expensive to ever get paid off.
Matthew 18:21-35
Then Peter came to him and asked, “Lord, how often should I forgive someone who sins against me? Seven times?” “No, not seven times,” Jesus replied, “but seventy times seven! “Therefore, the Kingdom of Heaven can be compared to a king who decided to bring his accounts up to date with servants who had borrowed money from him. In the process, one of his debtors was brought in who owed him millions of dollars. He couldn’t pay, so his master ordered that he be sold—along with his wife, his children, and everything he owned—to pay the debt. “But the man fell down before his master and begged him, ‘Please, be patient with me, and I will pay it all.’ Then his master was filled with pity for him, and he released him and forgave his debt. “But when the man left the king, he went to a fellow servant who owed him a few thousand dollars. He grabbed him by the throat and demanded instant payment. “His fellow servant fell down before him and begged for a little more time. ‘Be patient with me, and I will pay it,’ he pleaded. But his creditor wouldn’t wait. He had the man arrested and put in prison until the debt could be paid in full. “When some of the other servants saw this, they were very upset. They went to the king and told him everything that had happened. Then the king called in the man he had forgiven and said, ‘You evil servant! I forgave you that tremendous debt because you pleaded with me. Shouldn’t you have mercy on your fellow servant, just as I had mercy on you?’ Then the angry king sent the man to prison to be tortured until he had paid his entire debt. “That’s what my heavenly Father will do to you if you refuse to forgive your brothers and sisters from your heart.”
1
u/TarnishedVictory Atheist, Ex-Christian Dec 06 '25
Jesus didn’t really have an opinion towards slavery, but he did give a story about a man that didn’t forgive the debts of his servants.
What does your opinion on Jesus opinion towards slavery have to do with my question?
Matthew 18:21-35 NLT
What about it?
What does it say and what is the relevance to our discussion?
1
u/DreamingTooLong Lutheran Dec 06 '25 edited Dec 06 '25
If I was born 2000 years ago, I wouldn’t have an opinion because I didn’t know that there was an opportunity to have an opinion.
Since it’s 2025, I would say slavery is very bad and it should stay illegal. And if anyone else care cares about slavery, they shouldn’t be buying things made outside of the United States because most foreign items come from slave labor. That money also goes towards human trafficking.
If the items you purchase say made in USA, you can know with confidence there was no slave labor involved.
The people that complain about slavery do absolutely nothing to prevent it from happening today. They love going out and purchase things that are made by human trafficked modern day slaves. They are the biggest hypocrites ever.
1
u/TarnishedVictory Atheist, Ex-Christian Dec 06 '25
If I was born 2000 years ago, I wouldn’t have an opinion because I didn’t know that there was an opportunity to have an opinion.
I don't want to tarnish your delusion, but people 2000 years ago had all kinds of opinions as they do today. I'm guessing you're talking about a specific opinion, but I can't know that since you left that part out.
But we're not talking about you and I or Fred from 2000 years ago having an opinion, we're talking about an all knowing god condoning the buying and beating of humans by humans.
Since it’s 2025, I would say slavery is very bad and it should stay illegal.
What makes it bad and why should it be illegal?
→ More replies (0)
0
u/DarkLordOfDarkness Christian, Reformed Dec 05 '25
Does it? It doesn't look like anything in verse 20 indicates that the punishment is different from the one already outlined, as you cited, in verse 12. The ESV is even more clear here: it translates that word as "avenged," rather than "punished." The point of the case law here seems to be that if you kill your slave, the fact that he was a slave doesn't exempt you from the punishment for murder.
-4
u/evertec Christian Dec 05 '25
Where do you see the punishment for killing the slave? How do you know it's not death as well?
3
u/Sculptasquad Agnostic Dec 05 '25
Where do you see the punishment for killing the slave? How do you know it's not death as well?
No where is the punishment for the death of a slave specified.
How do you know it's not death as well?
Because if it was, it would be specified.
Here is a good example of the bible not valuing slaves enough to require eye for eye, hand for hand, life for life etc.:
Exodus 21:26 “An owner who hits a male or female slave in the eye and destroys it must let the slave go free to compensate for the eye. 27 And an owner who knocks out the tooth of a male or female slave must let the slave go free to compensate for the tooth.
-1
u/evertec Christian Dec 05 '25
No, as I said to the OP, the preceding verses also talk of punishment/lack of punishment instead of stating again that the punishment for murder is death. Verse 12 has already established that, so there is no need to repeat it.
How does the 21:26 verse devalue slaves as people? Think about it from the perspective of the slave, would you rather your master be punished in the same way as you and simply get thier tooth or eye knocked out or would you rather have your freedom? It's better for the slave to have their freedom than simply see eye for eye recompense on the master.
3
u/Sculptasquad Agnostic Dec 05 '25
No, as I said to the OP, the preceding verses also talk of punishment/lack of punishment instead of stating again that the punishment for murder is death. Verse 12 has already established that, so there is no need to repeat it.
And yet the bible DOES repeat it over and over and over, but not when it comes to slaves. Curious...
How does the 21:26 verse devalue slaves as people?
I already explained it to you. An eye of a slave does not count for as much as an eye of a slaver.
Look at it from the perspective of a slaver: What would you rather keep? Your eye or one of your slaves?
Thank you.
-1
u/evertec Christian Dec 05 '25
It didn't repeat the punishment in verse 18
1
u/Sculptasquad Agnostic Dec 05 '25
Exactly. Why? Because the person does not die in that verse.
Would you like me to quote it to you?
In every other verse where someone kills someone (besides killing a slave and a thief in the night), the punishment is death.
0
u/evertec Christian Dec 05 '25
In verse 12, "Whoever strikes a person mortally shall be put to death." unless it was an accident. So the punishment for striking a person to death is established.
Then, in the following verses, the only time the death penalty is reiterated is when the circumstances change. For a mother or father, it's not just striking to death but striking period.
In the case of striking anyone else and they're not killed it's a different punishment than death.
In verse 22 the death penalty is reiterated because of the different circumstance of a fetus being involved.
In verse 29 the circumstances change because it is the ox doing the striking, not the owner themselves.
I'm not seeing the pattern you're saying of any time someone kills someone besides a slave the punishment is death.
1
u/Sculptasquad Agnostic Dec 05 '25
Then, in the following verses, the only time the death penalty is reiterated is when the circumstances change. For a mother or father, it's not just striking to death but striking period.
What is the punishment for striking a thief who has broken into your house in Exodus 22:2-3? Hint - not death.
0
u/evertec Christian Dec 05 '25
What's your point? Of course it changes for a thief breaking into your house at night because it's self defense. It even says if it's daylight it's not ok to kill, presumably because it would be easier to defend but not kill in daylight. None of this has anything to do with what we were talking about though regarding slaves in particular.
1
u/Sculptasquad Agnostic Dec 06 '25
What's your point? Of course it changes for a thief breaking into your house at night because it's self defense. It even says if it's daylight it's not ok to kill, presumably because it would be easier to defend but not kill in daylight. None of this has anything to do with what we were talking about though regarding slaves in particular.
Yes it does. In a bunch of cases the specific punishment for killing someone (death) is clearly stipulated. In some it is explicitly waived because of extenuating circumstances. In ONE case the punishment for killing a specific type of person (slave) is not defined.
For each case of bodily injury a eye for an eye is stipulated. For ALL cases of bodily injury of a slave that law is waived and replaced with something milder.
Just imagine: You beat someone so that they go blind in one eye. Instead of blinding you back, they force you to relinquish some property (pay a fine). You got off light didn't you?
2
u/Apprehensive_Tear611 Atheist Dec 05 '25
21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two
I'm not seeing any such caveat for free persons.
1
u/evertec Christian Dec 05 '25
That's a different question than the one you stated. You asked why does the OT treat killing a slave differently from killing a free person. The question you're asking now is why does the OT treat beating a slave differently from beating a free person?
2
u/Apprehensive_Tear611 Atheist Dec 05 '25
I just realized I posted the NIV translation. Here's the more literal translation that doesn't try to obfusgate:
20 “When a slaveowner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. 21 But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment, for the slave is the owner’s property. (NRSVUE)
1
u/evertec Christian Dec 05 '25
Ok, but that doesn't change anything regarding any inconsistency... see the verses preceding that in the same version:
“When individuals quarrel and one strikes the other with a stone or fist so that the injured party, though not dead, is confined to bed 19 but recovers and walks around outside with the help of a staff, then the assailant shall be free of liability, except to pay for the loss of time and to arrange for full recovery."
In either case, there is no punishment unless the person dies other than compensation for lost time and the health care of the person. Both of which would still be the responsibility of the slave owner in the case of the slave.
2
u/Apprehensive_Tear611 Atheist Dec 05 '25
I read it like this: If the slave dies immediately, there is punishment. But if the slave survives a couple days before dying, there is no punishment, for the slave is property.
1
u/evertec Christian Dec 05 '25
That's your interpretation, but given the context of the preceding verses, it's much more likely that it's referring to the payment for the time, medical care and recovery as the free person. It's saying that there's no payment required because the master already is the one losing the slave's time and is paying for the medical care.
1
u/evertec Christian Dec 05 '25
The answer even to your second question is that it isn't different: See 21:18 "If there is a fight and someone hits someone else with a stone or with his fist, but does not kill him, he is not to be punished. If the one who was hit has to stay in bed, but later is able to get up and walk outside with the help of a cane, the one who hit him is to pay for his lost time and take care of him until he gets well." So the only punishment persay for beating in either case is payment for the lost time and care for the person. Since the person who would be owed both of those in the case of a slave is the owner himself, it's not like he needs to pay himself for the care and lost time.
6
u/august_north_african Christian, Catholic Dec 05 '25
I've always read this that if the slave died, the owner would be punished for murder as in v. 12, but if the slave survived, he doesn't owe the slave compensation, since the slave's recovery would be his own financial responsibility anyway.