The Immorality of God - Slavery in the Old Testament

[athrock]

There are three primary texts pertaining to the treatment of slaves in the Old Testament: Exodus 21, Leviticus 25 and Deuteronomy 15. From these, we can extract the following specific instructions:

Enslavement of others by kidnapping was prohibited. (Ex. 21:16)

This is a half truth, in that Exodus fully allows you to procure slaves from other nations, heedless of their actual origins prior to that point. So while active enslaving by kidnapping may be prohibited, there's a way around that by simply engaging in slave trading: so genteel!

No, it's FULLY true that kidnapping others into slavery was prohibited. (And here I'll insert what appears to be the obligatory eye roll to say, "You're such an idiot.")  

The acquisition of people who were ALREADY slaves would have been a blessing for them, because the Israelites were commanded by God to treat their slaves better than other nations treated them. Now, get real...we both know that being a slave sucked, but if you had to choose, you would have wanted to be the slave of a benevolent owner rather than some pagan Hittite. Wouldn't you?

   A Hebrew slave was to be set free after six years of service if the slave chose freedom; they were not slaves for life (Ex. 21:2-6). Non-Hebrew slaves purchased from neighboring nations could be slaves for life. (Lev. 25:46)

So, to begin with it's interesting that you're apparently okay with racist slavery, that's nice. Secondly, you conveniently neglect to mention that the time limit on Hebrew slaves comes with a handy little escape clause for the slaver, where they emotionally blackmail the slave by giving them a wife and children (we'll set aside the sex slavery aspect of that for now) and then holding them hostage so that the male slave submits to his owner forever just to stay with them. This isn't the kind, orderly sort of thing you're cherry picking it to seem like.

No, to BEGIN with, you can apologize for implying that I was telling a half-truth when it is obvious here that I make a clear reference to the differences between Hebrew and non-Hebrew slaves. Jerk.

Racist slavery? Yeah, that's my problem. Forget about the Africans taken to America against their will...no, what really gets me going is the thought of some Canaanites toiling in the noon-day sun, singing those old Amorite spirituals. "Go down, Sihon, let my people go..."

Yes, I'm mocking you. Could you tell?

Emotional blackmail? Lame...the slaves had the choice to say no, dude.

   If a female slave was chosen to be a wife of the owner’s son, the owner was to treat her as his own daughter. The husband was obligated to provide her with food, clothing and sex (which would result in the blessing of children). If he failed to provide these things, she was free to leave. (Ex. 21:7-11)

So if the owner chooses to make his female slave his son's sex slave- her consent to any of this isn't even mentioned- then he has to ensure she doesn't starve to death, and somehow slave rape gets turned into "conjugal rights," though again, her consent doesn't figure into it at all. Wow, how nice.  

Oh, so now they're not JUST slaves, but sex slaves, to boot. Ooooooh.

No, dude, they were legit wives and bearing sons to their husbands accorded them with great honor. You really, really need to read the OT again. The NT more, of course, but the OT again just to get the cobwebs out.

I must say, any respect I may have had for you previously has been lost costly. In one post. Not that you care, but damn.

Oh, and also? The "free to leave" bit only applies to Hebrew women: all others are just kinda stuck.

Yep. Kinda sucked to be on the wrong side of history, didn't it?
 

Slave owners were to be punished for killing their slaves. (Ex. 21:20)

... Assuming it happens right away. If they beat their slaves so hard they linger in agony for a few days before dying of their injuries, that's apparently totally okay. Funny how that specification didn't show up here, almost like you had something to hide.

Riiiiiight. By providing the exact verse, I was hiding it. Please tell me you're not an attorney or someone who has to make logical arguments for a living.

  Under some circumstances, slaves were to be set free if they were severely injured by their owners. (Ex. 21:26-27)

Yup: "If your master maims you in two highly specific places, you can go. If he maims you anywhere else, you have to stay." Golly gee, that makes up for the entire institution!  

I had the same reaction, to be honest, but this is too little too late for you, I'm afraid. Your previous points were insignificant, and this one is a trifling.

  Slaves were to be given a day of rest. (Ex. 23:12)

During which passage it's notable that "yo, you gotta give your ox and donkey time to rest," comes first, and the basis of this passage is mainly that you should avoid working your property to death.

Precisely. PRECISELY. Do you have evidence of any ANE code requiring better?

No, you really don't.

Which is why at the end of the day, you have to admit that the Mosaic Law raised the bar for the treatment of slaves.

Thanks for playing. I wish I could say you were a worthy adversary, but that would be a lie.

You had nothing. (and you want to take on WLC?)



Oh, and