Pastor Defends Slavery (Bible Is Always Right)

[TomFoolery]

“Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death." (Exodus 21:16) I see no stipulation with regards to race, color, or creed.

I think RationalWiki covers it pretty well:

Argument 1: "Slavery in the Bible was more enlightened than that of 17th-19th Century America and other Ancient Near East cultures."
Even granting this point for the sake of argument, this fails to answer the simple question: is owning another human ever moral, or not? The relative kindness of a slave owner does not enter into the basic moral question of owning other humans as property.
Argument 2: "They could be let go after 6 years" or "It was a mechanism for protecting the those who could not pay their debts." (A.k.a. "Debt bondage")[10]
Only some Hebrew male slaves were to be freed in the 7th year (Exodus 21:2). Slaves from surrounding countries could be kept as property forever (Leviticus 25:44-46). A further exception pertains to women whose fathers sold them into slavery, and for whom there was no release after six years (Exodus 21:7).
Argument 3: The Bible restricted slave owners' actions (Exodus 21:20).
Exodus 21:20 does mandate punishment for a master who kills a slave with a rod, but the very next verse says "But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner’s property" (NRSV). The NIV, by contrast, translates this verse as "if the slave recovers after a day or two", which changes its meaning. Either way, the emphasis is that the slave is first and foremost property, and therefore the greatest loss is to the owner, whose slave was "as good as money". [11]
Argument 4: "Slavery was allowed by God because of the time period, but was not the ideal will of God."
There are many ways a creative, all-knowing, and all-powerful deity could make it clear that slavery is immoral while, for instance, giving the Israelite economy a grace period to let slavery "wind down", should that be necessary. The passages concerning slavery from the Pentateuch (e.g. Exodus 21:2-7, Leviticus 25:44-46), by contrast, provide guidelines that allow for slavery to continue indefinitely. New Testament writers, too, who had an opportunity to overturn or clarify the Pentateuch's instructions, did not do so.
Also it seems improbable that a God who was capable of assassinating israelites by the thousand if they did not follow his instructions to the letter would baulk at telling them to give up slaves.
Argument 5: "The term 'slave' is a poor translation. It should be 'servant'."
This may be plausible in some contexts, but not for Leviticus 25:46, which specifically allows that slaves are property who may be inherited by the owner's children and kept for life. This passage makes no sense unless they are discussing slaveryâ€"permanent ownership of one human by anotherâ€"as we know it today.
Jesus' parable of the unforgiving servant[wp] (Matthew 18:23) makes no sense if said "servant" is not a slave, since the master has the power to sell both the "servant", his wife and his children (Matthew 18:25).
It also makes little sense in the case of Matthew 24:51 in which these "servants" may be not only beaten by their master (as in Luke 12:47), but that the master "shall cut him asunder" in the words of the King James translation.

It is also understood that any slave a that master either broke his tooth or blinded him had to be freed. All slaves were to participate in the Jewish holidays and not be excluded.

Don't confuse treating someone well and fairly with simply not maiming and abusing them.

[Simon Moon]

“Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death." (Exodus 21:16) I see no stipulation with regards to race, color, or creed.

So, which is correct then Exodus 21:16, or Leviticus 25:44-46 which specifically says that Hebrews are allowed to own non-Hebrew people as slaves?

It is also understood that any slave a that master either broke his tooth or blinded him had to be freed. All slaves were to participate in the Jewish holidays and not be excluded.

Exodus 21:20-21 says that if an owner beats his slave and the slave dies immediatly, then the owner is punished. If the slave "survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property".

Yes, Exodus 21:20-21 explains the rules for beating your slaves. It's OK to beat them, as long as they don't die for a couple of days.

[LittleNipper]

So, which is correct then Exodus 21:16, or Leviticus 25:44-46 which specifically says that Hebrews are allowed to own non-Hebrew people as slaves?

Exodus 21:20-21 says that if an owner beats his slave and the slave dies immediatly, then the owner is punished. If the slave "survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property".

Yes, Exodus 21:20-21 explains the rules for beating your slaves. It's OK to beat them, as long as they don't die for a couple of days.

And who controls the time of death: The master, the slave, or God?

[leo]

And who controls the time of death: The master, the slave, or God?
[/quote.                                                                                                                                                   Chuck Norris

[Baruch]

"And who controls the time of death: The master, the slave, or God?" ... with some people, by "will of G-d" they mean that if a man comes and rapes his wife, enslaves his children and kills him when he resists ... that is the "will of G-d" or G-d would magically fly down and prevent it ;-(  This kind of understanding of "will of G-d" has no morality in it at all.  Are you saying that as a fact, the Germans killed 30 million people of all kinds, only 6 million of whom were Jews ... that this means that G-d approved of what the Germans did?

Literalism + Bible = no morality at all ... and I know you are really trying to be a moral person, hence the terrible irony.

[TomFoolery]

Are you saying that as a fact, the Germans killed 30 million people of all kinds, only 6 million of whom were Jews ... that this means that G-d approved of what the Germans did?

Good point. The God of the Old Testament would approve of the slaughter of millions of gentile Soviets, Chinese, homosexuals, gypsies, and other war victims, so how many Jews have to die before it becomes an unrighteous act? One? Twelve (seems like a recurring number in the Bible)? 144,000? Was it unrighteous from the beginning since Jews were a primary target, or is it like Baruch says, and it can be made righteous if the aftermathematics of everyone else surpasses the deaths of Jews (which it did)?

I'm often told God makes bad things happen in order to give people a chance to have faith. Is faith really supposed to be constructed in such a way that people only want it when their lives suck?

[Baruch]

A "G-d of history" imposes a simple metaphysics, that blows idealists away ... or they must reject the "G-d of history".  An omnipotent G-d along with fallible free will humans ... means that at least in the long run, G-d always gets what G-d wants.  While G-d may not have wanted a particular Russian to die at German hands ... in the long run G-d wanted a lot of Russians to die at German hands ... because that is what actually happened, and G-d can't be thwarted ... unless we take the option that G-d takes care of balancing things out in a very distant future, or in an afterlife ... but such a G-d isn't a "G-d of history".  Justice delayed is justice denied.  This theology is all thru the Psalms and in the story of David and of Cyrus freeing the Jews in Babylon.  Sometimes the Jews had to wait for 40 years or 70 years ... but not longer.  It was always unclear how many generations G-d would curse.

[reasonist]

Interesting discussion for sure. One can learn so much from a closed mind like littlenipper. It is always the same argument though, by definition the deists haven't changed a thing for 2,000 years. They cannot; they are defending a book that was written by bronze age goat herders for whom a hammer would have been incredible technological advancement. So in order to defend this completely nonsensical, plagiarized, contradictory and blood drenched book in the 21st century, the pious have to ignore any and all evidence against it.
What I find interesting is the fact that despite the irrational posts of a believer on this forum, no personal insults have resulted from them. As a matter of fact, rational answers were given, links supplied and facts were shown. From my own experience, this respect was not returned when I posted once on a christian forum with a sincere and valid point, respectful and honest. I experienced the christian love firsthand when insults and threats were hurled at me with viciousness.

Littlenipper, I know you have read one book but maybe a few more would take you to a different point of view as comparison. Here is a suggestion to start with:
"The origins of American Slavery" by Betty Wood

The National Academy of Science has a wonderful website: www.nasonline.org   and a great book is available also on their web site: "Science, Evolution and Creationism" 

I have read yours, read some of ours, then we can have a discussion that is fact based not faith based.

[Simon Moon]

And who controls the time of death: The master, the slave, or God?

It has not gone unnoticed by anyone here, that you completely ignored the Bible passages I quoted, or the point I was making.

Your change of subject did not fool anyone.

[Mike Cl]

It has not gone unnoticed by anyone here, that you completely ignored the Bible passages I quoted, or the point I was making.

Your change of subject did not fool anyone.

As littlenipper himself said--he did not come here to have a discussion but because he was directed to.  And so far he has only preached his nonsensical fiction; not discussed.

[Blackleaf]

This is somewhat off topic, but I think the point is relevant here:

It doesn't matter what kind of terrible things happen. Murder, slavery, rape, a devout Christian will always put a positive spin on it.

[josephpalazzo]

As littlenipper himself said--he did not come here to have a discussion but because he was directed to.  And so far he has only preached his nonsensical fiction; not discussed.

You kind of wonder why God, the creator of heavens and earth, of time and space, perfection, beauty, morality, you name it, yet he should need idiots to sell his brand?!?

[stromboli]

Good video. Thanks.

Inerrancy of the bible is the more ludicrous when you start applying it factually to history. For things like earthquakes (after Jesus was crucified; no historical evidence) Noah's Ark (remnants of buildings in the vicinity show no water damage) Exodus (evidence shows that Judaism grew up amongst Canaanites; there was no Exodus) Jesus (no objective evidence to the events around or divinity of Jesus) all of which should have left piles of evidence in many forms, showing none.

You can only claim bible inerrancy by being absolutely ignorant of history and ignoring any provable information that is contrary to it.

And believers wonder why we tend to not respect them on the forum. There is just so much deliberate denial of evidence that we can put up with.

[LittleNipper]

So, which is correct then Exodus 21:16, or Leviticus 25:44-46 which specifically says that Hebrews are allowed to own non-Hebrew people as slaves?

Exodus 21:20-21 says that if an owner beats his slave and the slave dies immediatly, then the owner is punished. If the slave "survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property".

Yes, Exodus 21:20-21 explains the rules for beating your slaves. It's OK to beat them, as long as they don't die for a couple of days.

If I was a soldier of an invading army and was captured, I'd rather be a slave then put to death and I'd be a foreign invader and not a Hebrew.

[Baruch]

All the posters here, are uber-menschen ... their ethics are superior to Mahatma Gandhi ;-)  So of course, they wouldn't ever approve of any bad action, present day or in the past.  Even though, without the vices of our ancestors, we wouldn't even be born, or have our present standard of living.  Pocahontas and Nat Tyler died for America's sins ... and still are.