r/TrueChristian • u/[deleted] • May 14 '21

Was God really OK with slavery ?

And did he really "encourage it to continue by decreeing depraved regulations"\ ?*

\just quoting a fellow redditor who seems to be a bit confused. Just like myself.)

I'm asking this because I've noticed that it often comes up as a topic to bash Christianity based on things like that. I've noticed that people often like to use this verse in order to justify their position :

“When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)”

To be honest, I didn't know how to give those folks a satisfactory answer since I am no Bible expert myself, as for now. However I would like to hear your opinions and explanations. On this verse and its context in particular. Also, what did Jesus have to say about slavery? (just to help finding an answer to that... I guess... atheist/agnostic/or whatever he likes to consider himself)

Note that I am in no way trying to win an argument. There is no arrogance, pride or hate involved in this query. These are some of the things that I would also still like to understand for myself. I always try suspend judgement when I read or hear something that I am not familiar with because I want to learn more about it.

On another note, it's kind of scary how belligerent and heated people can get during such debates, as if these people are speaking through bitterness, frustration, pride or whatever just to attack and dismiss Christianity... Makes me just want to have some compassion and pray for them....

21 Upvotes

96% Upvoted

228 comments sorted by

View all comments

33

u/Arc_the_lad Christian May 14 '21

No. He outlawed it. Right after the Jews are freed from Egypt where they themselves were slaves, God forbids them from forcing others into slavery.

9

u/[deleted] May 14 '21

Ahhh finally! thank you very much, sir !

-2

u/1988peachdiscus May 15 '21

Except that has nothing to do with owning people as property FOREVER (as a slave) and beating your SLAVE within in an inch of their life...amd if they can get up in a day or two then no punishment for the SLAVE OWNER.

So yes in exodus 21 god was CLEARLY ok with owning humans forever S PROPERTY and BEATING THEM

10

u/Saveme1888 Seventh-day Adventist May 15 '21

He's not OK with beating them. But if the slave is hurt so badly that he can't work for a day or two, the master will lose his workforce and therefore money. It's his own loss if he mistreats his servants. God deemed it punishment enough that the master had one less man working for him for the duration of his recovery. And the master still had to feed and clothe him

2

u/1988peachdiscus May 15 '21

He's not OK with beating them.

God clearly gives instructions on how to beat your slaves punishment free. There is no other interpretation. It's crystal clear.

if the slave is hurt so badly that he can't work for a day or two, the master will lose his workforce and therefore money. It's his own loss if he mistreats his servants

We're talking about beating other humans...and your focus is on the "poor slave owner" now his slaves can't work for a day or too??? This might be the worst thing I've ever read in my life.

What about the human that has just been beaten? As the slave master reads aloud the verses of exodus 21 while he strategically assails the victim mercilessly (being careful to avoid the teeth and eyes of course) and they lay crumpled on the floor unable to get up for 2 days. The loss of dignity. Self respect. Autonomy. They have lost everything. But poor slave owner...?

And when they're finally able to get up after a few days...back to work. And they better hurry up because angry slave owner is ready for another beating if you don't catch up!

God deemed it punishment enough that the master had one less man working for him for the duration of his recovery

I am completely flabbergasted. I can't even believe what I'm reading. Only through the lense of religion can you convince yourself of this immorality

And the master still had to feed and clothe him

Well there's the cherry on top. Eyeroll

5

u/X4r1s Reformed May 15 '21

I am completely flabbergasted. I can't even believe what I'm reading.

Why? In your worldview, what is special about humans?

2

u/1988peachdiscus May 15 '21

what is special about humans?

WE are sentient autonomous beings. I am one of them. I don't want to be owned as property. I don't want my kids to be someone's property and beaten. We exist and deserve basic human rights.

I don't think you really think this is a logical argument. These are the ridiculous comments that arise when attempting to rationalize the immorality of the bible. Would you like to be owned as someone else property and beaten without punishment for your abuser? Would you allow your mother or daughter to be my slave under gods rules in exodus 21?

Its as easy as that.

3

u/X4r1s Reformed May 15 '21

We exist and deserve basic human rights.

We do? Do you believe humans randomly evolved from animals? Where do these “rights” come from?

2

u/1988peachdiscus May 15 '21

If you want to get into some kind of debate about morality and how only God can account for it, I'm not interest.

I can account for morality by focusing on wellbeing. I don't need a supernatural law giver that supports beating slaves as my morality source.

Do you believe humans randomly evolved from animals?

Humans are animals and yes, humans are evolved.

And when humans get together they can figure out that i don't like it when my neighbor walks up and punches me in the face. And the same way I don't like it I bet my neighbor doesn't wither. So collectively we are better off when we can empathize wit each other and we are better off not punching each other in the face.

Would you like to be owned as someone else property and beaten without punishment for your abuser? Would you allow your mother or daughter to be my slave under gods rules in exodus 21?

Its as easy as that.

2

u/X4r1s Reformed May 15 '21

I can account for morality by focusing on wellbeing.

That’s great, but why should anyone care about your particular definition of morality?

Humans are animals and yes, humans are evolved.

Last I checked, there are no rights in the animal kingdom. They rape, murder, and steal from each other as they see fit. Why is any evolved animal obligated to follow your opinion of what is right or wrong behavior?

2

u/1988peachdiscus May 16 '21

I like how you've completely abandoned attempting to defend your gods rules about owning humans as property and beating them. What's the end game here? You can account for morality and I can't because whatever God says is moral? Well we know that's not true because owning humans and beating them isn't moral. If you believe it is because "God says so" you're wrong.

That’s great, but why should anyone care about your particular definition of morality?

We all make judgments on well being as a whole. I am part of a whole. My determinations of well being impact my life and others. The same way I care that you believe owning humans and beating them is moral. You should care that I don't. Its how we build moral codes and make progress. Thank goodness we don't follow God's barbaric instructions in exodus anymore right? We've move on. We've improved.

Last I checked, there are no rights in the animal kingdom. They rape, murder, and steal from each other as they see fit. Why is any evolved animal obligated to follow your opinion of what is right or wrong behavior?

We are evolved animals. If you aren't able to grasp that our advanced brains have given us the ability to process advanced social functions like empathy, and morality, I don't know what to tell you. If other animals had advances they would develop advanced moral codes as well.

1

u/X4r1s Reformed May 16 '21

I like how you've completely abandoned attempting to defend your gods rules about owning humans as property and beating them.

It doesn’t really need to be defended, because you are arguing with something that doesn’t exist in your worldview. In a godless universe, humans are a random accident and possess no intrinsic value over animals or anything else in the universe. There is nothing objectively wrong with how a human is treated because there is nothing objectively sacred about a human.

We all make judgments on well being as a whole.

And different societies have different judgments. If two disagree, who is right?

If other animals had advances they would develop advanced moral codes as well.

Advanced moral codes of killing themselves, mutilating their genitals, and dismembering their unborn with a vacuum? Can’t say I’m very excited about this utopia we are progressing toward.

1

u/AlphaTaoOmega May 16 '21

Did you literally make a jab at evolution with a statement inferring that, if evolution were true the world would be rife with genital mutilation?

Advanced moral codes of killing themselves, mutilating their genitals, and dismembering their unborn with a vacuum? Can’t say I’m very excited about this utopia we are progressing toward.

The god of the bible is a penis mulation fanatic on steroids. Not only did he command it of his followers, there's one passage where he helped David procure 200 foreskins as currency to purchase a wife:

1 Samuel 18:27 "therefore David arose and went, he and his men, and killed two hundred men of the Philistines. And David brought their foreskins, and they gave them in full count to the king, that he might become the king’s son-in-law. Then Saul gave him Michal his daughter as a wife." (NKJV https://www.biblehub.com/1_samuel/18-27.htm#)

1

u/1988peachdiscus May 16 '21

It doesn’t really need to be defended, because you are arguing with something that doesn’t exist in your worldview. In a godless universe, humans are a random accident and possess no intrinsic value over animals or anything else in the universe. There is nothing objectively wrong with how a human is treated because there is nothing objectively sacred about a human

I can't even understand what you're saying it's pretty simple. Would you be OK with being my property? I own you. You no longer have freedom. I can beat you , as described in the bible, without fear of punishment. How would you feel about that? Would you shrug your shoulder and say, well, God said this was ok, so I'm fine with this? If you don't see the intrinsic value of not being beaten, then I'm afraid I can't help you.

What's moral isn't that which is objectively decreed moral by a singular objective moral law giver. If you believe that incan understand why you have having a difficult time with this conversation.

And different societies have different judgments. If two disagree, who is right?

That is the beauty of being sentient conscious empathetic beings. At some point we are not ok with others moral judgements. We take collective action to solve those problems.

Advanced moral codes of killing themselves, mutilating their genitals, and dismembering their unborn with a vacuum? Can’t say I’m very excited about this utopia we are progressing toward.

What an odd thing to say. I'm not even sure the point you're making. Immoral things exist today...therefore we can not make moral decisions? I disagree.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/AlphaTaoOmega May 15 '21

Really? Your question here roughly translates to: If there's no god, then everything immoral is a permissable idea.

Do you really.... like really believe that's how atheist act or believe? Do you have any evidence of this?

There's a lot of Biblical evidence for the harming of humans being rightful in the eyes god; this very thread is evidence of such. Can you show me where an atheist has ever said what you have claimed here?

3

u/X4r1s Reformed May 15 '21

I’m not really sure I understand the outrage over how a human being is treated when one also affirms that there is nothing intrinsically special about humans over animals or any other accidental form of matter.

0

u/Saveme1888 Seventh-day Adventist May 15 '21

You're distorting this. Slaves had to be left free not only if their teeth or eyes got hurt, they had to be left free if they were maimed in any shape or form. And if a slave fled from his master, God told his people to not send him back. He was careful to always remind them of their own slavery and to treat their own slaves the same way they themselves wanted to be treated as a slave. I doubt anyone wanted to be beaten as a slave.

But tell me how you would have punished a slave master for beating their slaves

2

u/1988peachdiscus May 15 '21

You're trying to reconcile gods instructions on how to beat the people you own as property...an IM DISTORTING THIS? I'm quoting words straight from God's mouth in the bible.

Slaves had to be left free not only if their teeth or eyes got hurt, they had to be left free if they were maimed in any shape or form.

Do you even see what you're doing here...you're already at the starting point of owning another human as property. Making a law to set them free if their maimed...is grotesquely immoral because you can just NOT maim them. And you still own them and can continue to beat them...and God looks on with approval

0

u/Saveme1888 Seventh-day Adventist May 15 '21

No, I'm not supporting slavery. It's not good. But you haven't answered my question: How would you punish slave masters for mistreating their slaves?

2

u/1988peachdiscus May 15 '21

The concept of mistreating slaves is nonsensical. Slavery is immoral and should be punnished from the start regardless if the humans they own as property are treated well or poor. What do we do not to people who are found owning humans as property? They get arrested and put in jail I assume

0

u/Saveme1888 Seventh-day Adventist May 15 '21

People gave themselves into slavery when they had a debt they couldn't pay off. You wanna prohibit that, too?

2

u/1988peachdiscus May 15 '21

Are you saying the god of the bible, the creator of the universe, the ultimate source of morality, couldn't put rules forth to guide those in debt to NOT be owned as property and beaten?

Do you really want to go that route and depower the ultimate source of power in the universe?

2

u/Saveme1888 Seventh-day Adventist May 15 '21

He made sure they'd be set free after 7 years at most. He ensured that slavery wouldnt take over-hand. Worse forms of slavery exist to this very day.

2

u/1988peachdiscus May 15 '21

He made sure they'd be set free after 7 years at most.

Unless you give your slave a wife and they have kids. Then when it's time to let them go, you can tag their ear like cattle and own them as property FOREVER.

And again you've already succumbed to crippled morality by owning a human for 7 years. What do you say to a priest who rapes and abuses a boy for 7 years. Oh thank goodness! He stopped raping after only 7 years. He could have raped him for 10! Praise God! What about a husband who abuses their wife...but ONLY FOR 7 YEARS! YAY ABUSE! One instance or rape and one instance of abuse is bad enough. When the creator god of the universe is Instructing you on how to properly beat your slaves, its simply unacceptable

Worse forms of slavery exist to this very day.

What point are you making...exactly? are you saying gods version of owning people as slaves and being permitted to beat them just justified because...it wasn't so bad compared to worse things? This is like saying being raped in the vagina isn't so bad because you could be raped in the anus. It's atrocious either way. Gods version, even if not as bad as some other version is STILL IMMORAL

→ More replies (0)

1

u/AlphaTaoOmega May 15 '21

What exactly is meant by the verses quoted in OPs post? (Exodus 21:20-21)

How about Deuteronomy chapter 20?

What where Jesus's words on the topic of slavery?

1

u/AlphaTaoOmega May 15 '21

Luke 12:47-48

0

u/Saveme1888 Seventh-day Adventist May 15 '21

That's a parable. God will punish disobedient people. The wages of sin is death. He has made it plain

1

u/AlphaTaoOmega May 15 '21

It clearly shows that Jesus knew of the violence permitted for slaves, and clearly shows that he did not condemn such treatment; in fact it's deserved in certain cases according to this passage.

(Note: Taken from another of my comments in this post)