There are instructions for slavery, because it was not a crime. Rather, it was an acceptable form of treating another human.

slavery is not a 'form of treating a human'


slavery is merely a form of SUBMITTING TO AUTHORITY

there is nothing inherent in the term slavery that implies how anyone is to behave or treat others

Here you go again arguing about things that do not matter. Slavery was not a biblical crime. That is the point.

There is something inherent in the behavioral state of human affairs that is called "slavery". There is something inherent in the conditions in which one is a "slave".

We cannot go around calling everyone who submits to authority a "slave" without completely neglecting the empirical state of affairs that are described by the term "slavery", that are not a part of every submission to authority.

look up the definition of the word,,,and CONSIDER such a definition could accurately reflect the many hebrew words in the original bible which were TRANSLATED into that term


also consider there was no WELFARE for the struggling or disenfranchised


it was not illegal to enter into an arrangement where one adult basically PROVIDED for another and/or their family, in return for services

it was also not illegal to capture those during a time of warfare and hold them for service

it WAS regulated that in either of those situations, we were to love each other,,,, nothing inherently offensive or unrighteous at all when taken in CONTEXT of the WHOLE LESSON

Msharmony,

You earlier invoked the notion of intellectual dishonesty. Yet here, you are developing a pattern of picking and choosing between which responses of mine you directly address. In doing so, you have ignored the ones which are most important to our considerations while focusing upon things that make no difference.

Why is that?

AS this is not a consistently real time discussion, I am not intentionally 'ignoring' anything

I respond to what I see posted at the time I happen to look at the thread, I dont usually review all pages to see if I have missed anything, although sometimes I might,

thats a factor of time and preference, not intentional avoidance


if there is something you feel 'makes a difference'(and I wouldnt post things that I didnt believe make a difference, even if you dont agree they do),,please post it again and I will respond

You're now questioning the veracity of the translations?

no, Im continuing to aknowledge how CONTEXT ties in with both DEFINITION and TRANSLATION

Well consider it brought to your attention.

...and answered

While ignoring the fact that no form of slavery is moral.

the OPINION that no form is moral

of which I disagree

"Slavery" is a term attributed to a set of living conditions. Those conditions are what make a human a "slave". It is called "slavery" for quite specific reasons. Biblical slavery, as it is described within the text, meets those conditions. My point is that focusing upon the minor differences between regulations/forms was your tactic. There were different kinds of slaves in the text and they were treated like the kind of slaves that they were. The fact that some were life-long slaves and some were not does not change the fact that they were slaves.

The fact that the Bible did not admonish slavery itself because of the inherent immorality that is extant in all forms of slavery is just one reason of many which constitute the ground which supports the conclusion that the Bible condones slavery. Context is irrelevent to what constitutes being a "slave". It has no bearing upon the criterion that must be met in order for a human to be a slave. It makes no sense to call someone a "slave" who is not a slave. The biblical scholars who translate the Bible are fully aware of this.





There are several different problems with this. Murder, idol worship, working on the Sabbath, using God's name in vain, dishonoring one's parents, lying, and many other behaviors were also already a reality, and yet they were not "morally" regulated.

There is no regulation of that which is forbidden. Slavery is not forbidden. It is regulated. A regulated behavior must be first deemed acceptable. Acceptable behaviors are regulated. Unacceptable behaviors are not - those are forbidden.

Do you not see the problem here?



Here is an example of changing the meaning of the term "dehumanize" in order to internally justify holding the belief that biblical slavery was somehow not dehumanizing. Calling a human "property" IS dehumanizing - first and foremost. That is also an element in both, American and biblical slavery.

Slavery being "morally" regulated? Do you not SEE the problem here? We cannot "morally" regulate immoral behavior. To regulate behavior is to instruct how it is to be performed. Regulating slavery is condoning not only it's existence, but further instructing how it is to be done.

A rose by any other name is still a rose.

To call any form of slavery moral is to show a complete lack of understanding what morality is. To call a form of slavery moral is to call it good; is to call it right.

creative posted : Context is irrelevent to what constitutes being a "slave




my reply: context is NEVER irrelevant, when it comes to reading comprehension or verbal conversation




creative posted:There are several different problems with this. Murder, idol worship, working on the Sabbath, using God's name in vain, dishonoring one's parents, lying, and many other behaviors were also already a reality, and yet they were not "morally" regulated.

There is no regulation of that which is forbidden. Slavery is not forbidden. It is regulated. A regulated behavior must be first deemed acceptable. Acceptable behaviors are regulated. Unacceptable behaviors are not - those are forbidden.




we can continue to agree to disagree, SLAVERY is not an action, it is an institution,, unlike the other things you mentioned


although I understand that YOUR opinion interprets slavery as behaviors and actions

mine (and most collegiate and educational resources I know of) does not interpret slavery as a behavior or action




I repeat one of MANY potential definitions of slavery, given by Miriam Webster is

submission to a dominating influence


the opening explanation of slavery in the ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITTANICA reads

Condition in which one human being is owned by another





,,,,notice the terms 'condition' and 'submission', both can definitely apply to someones CHOICE to do so which is what forms my opinion that SLAVERY in and of itself(that is being 'owned' or being in 'submission') is not an amoral institution, nor is it amoral by iteself

it becomes AMORAL if either party BEHAVES in an amoral manner or disobeys the PRIME tenet expressed by Christ regarding treating others with love

Look, I understand exactly what you're saying here. You're missing the point altogether. You do not seem to understand that reading comprehension does not affect what it takes to be a slave. It only affects whether or not one understands what being a slave is. It seems to me that you do not understand that slavery is immoral.



Yet another post which makes no difference and completely misses the point. If we remove human behavior there can be no institution called "slavery". I agree that slavery is rightfully called an institution. I'll further point out that it is a human institution and the regulation of such a thing is to regulate the human behavior within that institution.

Slavery is not forbidden it is regulated. The fact that it is regulated in the Bible does not make it moral, nor does it make it anything other than condoned slavery.

what makes no difference to you might make a difference to others

as I said, slavery is no more amoral than capitalism or any other system of supply and demand

it is how people behave that is amoral or immoral, not institutions , not buildings, not systems,,,

people and their CHOICES and BEHAVIORS

This is bordering on insanity.

How, as humans, can we say that selling another human is moral? How can we say that calling and treating another human like a piece of property is moral? How can we say that beating another human to near death is moral?

Because money is not immoral, its only a bartering tool

Because being 'property' has many implications other than mistreatment or dehumanization

beating someone is defying the TENET of CHRIST that says to treat others with love and to do unto each other as we wish to have done to us,, so Im not sure what relevance your last question has



the bible does REVIEW the conditions of biblical times, it REPEATS the laws that those nations had concerning their situation AS WELL As the laws as laid down by God and expressed by Jesus


to say that the bible somehow is a tool which 'condones' slavery of all forms is to say that my history book 'condones' hangings


again, this is where review, and more review, and research, into the CONTEXT of what we read in the bible becomes extremely important

otherwise you have folks going around claiming that anything discussed, mentioned ,or reviewed in the bible, by nature of its mention or discussion, is being 'condoned'


slavery has many forms, and in biblical times was used in several contexts,, as a condition for the captured enemy(prisoner of war in modern times), as a condition of the criminal(jail in modern times) , as a condition of providing for those who couldnt provide for themself(welfare in modern times)

it is no more amoral than holding pows, or jailing lawbreakers, or providing welfare for those who are disenfranchised

but it was ALL described with the same term of 'slavery' in the bible

First of all, the term "amoral" means having no moral content. In other words something which is amoral is not a matter of right and wrong. Secondly comparing capitalism to slavery does not make slavery amoral. Capitalism is amoral because it is an economic system of exchanging goods and services that does not require immoral behavior for it's implementation. Rather, it requires a moral agent(humans) for that. Capitalism can be morally implemented; not that I'm suggesting that it has been, only that it can. Therefore, the manner of exchange is subject to moral discussion because that involves human behavior and morality is all about what is considered right and wrong human behavior.

Now, when we talk about slavery as an institution, that institution is defined by the very characteristics that make it slavery. It is not an economic system of exchanging goods and services which can be morally implemented. Slavery requires the ownership of another human. The slave is the property of the slave-owner. The slave does not have a choice in the matter while s/he is a slave. If these conditions are not met, then we are not talking about slavery. Owning another human is inherently wrong in and of itself. Therefore, slavery as an institution, is not amoral - it cannot be amoral. Rather, it is inherently immoral because it necessitates owning another human.



It is how people use terms that makes the usage correct/incorrect. You're using these terms incorrectly. That is not a matter of opinion, that is a matter of social convention.

Nowhere in the Bible that I can remember, does it say that entering into slavery is a matter of choice. It does say that some slaves are to be owned for a limited amount of time, and that at the end of that duration, that the slave has the choice to leave. Leaving then makes the slave no longer owned by the slave-owner, no longer the slave-owners' property, but a free wo/man.