The Immorality of God - Slavery in the Old Testament

[athrock]

Walking on eggshells is your characterization, not mine.

You didn't think about yours, that's sort of the difference between our respective characterizations.

But you have mixed up the punishments of some people with the forming of another people.

... Which is irrelevant to the point I was making, but okay.

God basically rebooted the planet at the flood, so that's in a class by itself.

Wow, an arbitrary, self serving redefinition with no justification for why it should be accepted. I'm suitably chastened.  

The point is that god didn't need to work within human means to effect change there, nor did he give one single shit about human free will. He just reached down and made the change he wanted by force, meaning that the excuse you're making is contradicted by the source you're citing.

Lot's wife (and the dude who touch the Ark, btw) were pegged as a warning that God is not to be trifled with.

And if god is okay with giving warnings and swinging his divine dick around, if you're accepting that disobedience to god justifies that punishment, and your position is that god does not approve of slavery, then therefore god reaching down to enforce a "no slavery" rule immediately is entirely consistent with his character.

We're still talking about them 3,000+ years later, so I think the lessons were pretty memorable. Sodom and the Canaanites were obliterated because they were perverse and needed killing.

Human slavery, apparently, is not a perverse act, then.  

I'm a bit annoyed with your failure to grasp basic concepts, so forgive me if I come across as unfeeling. I get that people were killed, but frankly, people on death row are executed routinely in the United States and in other countries. Sometimes, you just have to pull up the bad weeds so that the healthy plants can flourish.

... But slavers apparently aren't bad weeds, in your estimation? What does this have to do with anything?

So, there are three things here:

1. Zapping of individuals as a warning to others.
2. Punishment of peoples and nations which were steeped in sin.
3. The slow, methodical formation of an obstinate group of "bronze age goat herder" who eventually became the nation of Israel.  

THAT is my position.

But three is both ineffective and inconsistent with the character of god, leading to immense human suffering over the course of many, many years, in a world where you fully acknowledge that two happens. God could have- and I would argue should have, if he disliked slavery- performed dialed back versions of one and two to discourage slavery immediately, since he's apparently okay doing that for other crimes, rather than even courting three at all. You don't take a gentle tack when approaching a topic like slavery, but resort to the death penalty over looking around or touching the Ark, without a profoundly messed up, immoral sense of priorities.

That's sort of the problem. In your rush to excuse the inexcusable, you're positing a wildly inconsistent, contradictory god. Clearly you either worship a madman, or the god you're suggesting is not the one present in the book.

Sure, Ex-Lax. Show me where I lied.

Ugh, I'd hoped you'd just cop to it and save me the time, but oh well.  

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!  

   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.

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

 

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.

  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!  

  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.

You people bring up the same half-passages every time, do you really think we haven't gone through and read the horrible shit in the immediate next sentences by now? Pathetic.  

Quick post to let you know that I'm going to read your post one time to decide whether there is anything I need to respond to.