• SuddenlyBlowGreen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    Ā·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    For example, the quote about slaves in Exodus was not a teaching. Itā€™s historical context about law at that time. That verse was intended to prevent brutalities towards slaves

    Itā€™s not a teaching, it just explicitly tells people what to do and not to do. Makes sense.

    (which at the time were either hired labourers or in indebted servitude who literally sold themselves to pay off a debt, they were freed or ā€œreleasedā€ when the monetary value of their debt was paid off. Itā€™s not the same as the term for slavery we commonly associate with the it today).

    Hired laborers and indentured servants whom you could beat and abuse, and had no freedom of their own. Hmm, I wonder if thereā€™s a word for thatā€¦

    The wording that if a slave survives for a day or two was used to determine intent, as it was considered that if someone survives for a couple days after being punished then something else was also the cause of death, and not a direct result of the punishment enacted.

    Ultimately the point here is that this isnā€™t a ā€œteachingā€ in any way. Some things in the Bible are just historical facts and context.

    Itā€™s not a teaching, it just explicitly tells people what to do and not to do. Makes sense.

    Timothy 2:12 (I know you mean 1 Timothy even though you didnā€™t specify, because thereā€™s a 1 Timothy and a 2 Timothy)

    Youā€™re very clever, congratulations.

    also needs context, because that scripture is about spiritual matters. Itā€™s like a chain of command for the purposes of order. This is something that you cannot pull a single scripture out and use only that as an example. There are many other scriptures that expand on this. For example, a man/husband is supposed to treat his wife like his own body and like a ā€œweaker vesselā€ (implying a delicate and gentle approach), and anyone who does not hates himself and God.

    You can give all the context you want, thatā€™s sexism, plain and simple.

    Itā€™s like a chain of command for the purposes of order.

    A chain of command you cannot change, that is not based on knowledge or experience, but on whatā€™s between your legs.

    Corinthians 11:5-6 - (which Corinthians? Thereā€™s two of them)

    Or not so clever, I guess.

    We have this wonderful new technology called google. Feel free to use it.

    Or not, since it was created by the devil of science.

    how is this torture? Itā€™s just about head coverings, and one thatā€™s often taken out of context. Verse 11 and 12 say *ā€œBesides, in connection with the Lord, neither is woman separate from man nor is man separate from woman. 12 For just as the woman is from the man, so also the man is through the woman; but all things are from God.ā€

    The Bible doesnā€™t teach dominating and torturing people, for one.

    Forcing women to shave their heads sure sounds like dominating to meā€¦

    Basically neither man or women are better than the other, both are from God and thatā€™s all that matters.

    Men arenā€™t forced to shave their hair, and using your analogy, they are always higheron the chain of command than women.

    Titus 2:9-10 - You could literally replace ā€œslaveā€ with employee and ā€œmasterā€ with boss or CEO, and then no one would say boo. As I mentioned earlier, the term slave is not the dehumanizing one we often use. Its modern counterpart is very close to ā€œemployeeā€.

    Except CEOs arenā€™t allowed to beat up employees, and employees are free to leave.

    Colossians 3:22-24, Leviticus 25:44-46, Peter 2:18 - same argument, because the term slave in these verses are not what you are attributing to it.

    ā€œEmployees, be subject to your CEOs with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse.ā€

    And all of this not even talking about the rampant homophobia, genocide, etc commanded in the bible

    • CeeBee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      Ā·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Hired laborers and indentured servants whom you could beat and abuse, and had no freedom of their own. Hmm, I wonder if thereā€™s a word for thatā€¦

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_slavery

      ā€œBroadly, the Biblical and Talmudic laws tended to consider slavery a form of contract between persons, theoretically reducible to voluntary slavery, unlike chattel slavery, where the enslaved person is legally rendered the personal property (chattel) of the slave owner.ā€

      ā€œAncient Israelite society allowed slavery; however, total domination of one human being by another was not permitted.[16][17] Rather, slavery in antiquity among the Israelites was closer to what would later be called indentured servitude.[15] Slaves were seen as an essential part of a Hebrew household.[18] In fact, there were cases in which, from a slaveā€™s point of view, the stability of servitude under a family in which the slave was well-treated would have been preferable to economic freedom.ā€

      ā€œAlthough not prohibited, Jewish ownership of non-Jewish slaves was constrained by Rabbinic authorities since non-Jewish slaves were to be offered conversion to Judaism during their first 12-months term as slaves. If accepted, the slaves were to become Jews, hence redeemed immediately. If rejected, the slaves were to be sold to non-Jewish owners. Accordingly, the Jewish law produced a constant stream of Jewish converts with previous slave experience. Additionally, Jews were required to redeem Jewish slaves from non-Jewish owners, making them a privileged enslavement item, albeit temporary. The combination has made Jews less likely to participate in enslavement and slave trade.ā€

      ā€œThe Torah forbids the return of runaway slaves who escape from their foreign land and their bondage and arrive in the Land of Israel. Furthermore, the Torah demands that such former slaves be treated equally to any other resident alien.ā€

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servitude

      "Indentured servitude is a form of labor in which a person is contracted to work without salary for a specific number of years. The contract, called an ā€œindentureā€, may be entered ā€œvoluntarilyā€ for purported eventual compensation or debt repayment, or it may be imposed ā€œinvoluntarilyā€ as a judicial punishment. "

      Yes, thereā€™s a lot more in that Wikipedia page, but Jewish history expands well past the Bible and the 1st century. Iā€™m just focusing on the Biblical period.

      Slavery pre-American colonial settlement is far more nuanced than people realize. Dan Carlinā€™s Hardcore History podcast goes into immense detail in the Humane Resources episode (and thatā€™s ā€œhumans as resourcesā€ in the title).

      You can give all the context you want, thatā€™s sexism, plain and simple.

      Is it though? Because 1 Corinthians says "For just as the woman is from the man, so also the man is through the woman; but all things are from God.ā€ Which is to say neither men or women are above the other, they are equal to God.

      A chain of command you cannot change, that is not based on knowledge or experience, but on whatā€™s between your legs.

      True, but an employee at a large company cannot become the CEO (yes, I know itā€™s ā€œtechnicallyā€ possible, but how often does that happen?). I know youā€™ll disagree on this, and thatā€™s fine, we can disagree. But my position is that this ā€œorderā€ isnā€™t oppressive in any way. Thereā€™s no privilege or power in the role (there isnā€™t supposed to be, but we know that it has been abused countless times). Itā€™s only meant to be a role to be assign leadership to a clearly defined person in the family. A ā€œleaderā€ doesnā€™t control the people they are leading, they simply the person that gives guidance for the group as a whole. Anyways, weā€™re going to disagree on this.

      Or not so clever, I guess.

      We have this wonderful new technology called google. Feel free to use it.

      I knew which Corinthians was being referenced. I was pointing out that OP keeps referencing scriptures without giving all the details. Which matters because theyā€™ve been touting their expertise and deep knowledge in the topic.

      Forcing women to shave their heads sure sounds like dominating to meā€¦

      Men arenā€™t forced to shave their hair, and using your analogy, they are always higheron the chain of command than women.

      Men (in ancient Israel) are required to do other things, like cut the tip of their genitals off.

      Taking a single example is cherry-picking. There are many things that were required of both men and women, and people in all different stations.

      Except CEOs arenā€™t allowed to beat up employees, and employees are free to leave.

      Because in modern days we have extensive and well established legal codes and policing infrastructures. Back in the Bible on a farm being worked by many people, the closest settlement would have been many hours, if not days away. There was no local police station, no 911 or emergency services. Land owners were thus expected to be the ones enforcing the law on their land. We also have extensive and meticulous laws covering all kinds of topics, scenarios, and conditions that are recorded in explicit detail. Back then most people didnā€™t read, and if they did they definitely didnā€™t have any access to a copy of the law. As such laws were often simple and not complex so that the average person could grasp and remember them.

      That being said, slavery in the Bible isnā€™t what you think it is (as I mentioned earlier in my comment). A slave would only receive such punishment if they did something extremely heinous, like murder someone.

      Edit: formatting, clarification

      • SuddenlyBlowGreen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        Ā·
        1 year ago

        ā€œBroadly, the Biblicalā€¦ equally to any other resident alien.ā€*

        What you forgot you mention about the wikipedia page, is that these are not facts, but quotes from a religious scholar.

        A religious scholar, who would greatly benefit from people thinking of positively of his religion.

        If google puts it on their wikipedia page that them avoiding hundreds of millions in taxes is in context a really good thing, would you believe them?

        Slavery pre-American colonial settlement is far more nuanced than people realize.

        I donā€™t even need to respond to it, it just speaks for itself.

        Is it though?

        Yes. Itā€™s literally ā€œAll of you are equal, some are just more equal than othersā€.

        Which is to say neither men or women are above the other, they are equal to God.

        Ah, I see. ā€œSeperate but equalā€.

        True, but an employee at a large company cannot become the CEO (yes, I know itā€™s ā€œtechnicallyā€ possible, but how often does that happen?).

        It is possible, and it does happen.

        In fact, every employee can start their own company and become its CEO.

        A more apt analogy would be, a company where white people can become managers and C-suite, but black people cannot.

        Would you support this?

        That being said, slavery in the Bible isnā€™t what you think it is (as I mentioned earlier in my comment). A slave would only receive such punishment if they did something extremely heinous, like murder someone.

        ā€œThe condition in which one person is owned as property by another and is under the ownerā€™s control, especially in involuntary servitude.ā€

        Yep, that fits.

        Iā€™ll never understand how people like you can sink to such levels, defending slavery.

        And again, the rampant homophobia.

        • CeeBee@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          Ā·
          1 year ago

          A religious scholar, who would greatly benefit from people thinking of positively of his religion.

          This assumes all religious scholars have a nefarious agenda. I donā€™t doubt some or many do, but no more so than the final population average. There are many who genuinely want to help others and believe in teaching and sharing peace.

          I donā€™t even need to respond to it, it just speaks for itself.

          Because you think ā€œslaveryā€ means the same thing across all time. That level of willful ignorance speaks for itself also.

          Yes. Itā€™s literally "All of you are equal, some are just more equal than others

          No, itā€™s all are equal but not everyone can have the same job and responsibilities. Not everyone can be the owner of a company (unless youā€™re WestJet).

          Ah, I see. ā€œSeperate but equalā€.

          Just ā€œequalā€.

          In fact, every employee can start their own company and become its CEO.

          I did specify ā€œlarge corporationā€ in my example. Thanks for ignoring that.

          Yep, that fits.

          Involuntary servitude under the law (back in the era weā€™re talking about) had clear definitions. It was often invoked to collect a debt and could only be held until the debt was paid off, not longer. Captured non-Hebrew enemies were also sometimes put under involuntary servitude. But they were required to either convert, at which point they would be freed. Or else sold off to a non-Hebrew.

          Iā€™ll never understand how people like you can sink to such levels, defending slavery.

          And Iā€™ll never understand how people can have such reductionist ways of thinking. ā€œSlaveryā€, as itā€™s used today, is technically ā€œchattel slaveryā€, which is different. They have similar letters in English, but are not the same thing. Some translations even use different terms because the modern English word ā€œslaveryā€ has a different meaning. Indentured and voluntary servitude were commonplace back then. Today it isnā€™t. Although the relationship between an employee and employer share many of the same definitions. ā€œSlavesā€ under voluntary servitude were even able to ā€œseek a new masterā€. Basically find a new job. Such cruelty.

          • SuddenlyBlowGreen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            Ā·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            This assumes all religious scholars have a nefarious agenda. I donā€™t doubt some or many do, but no more so than the final population average. There are many who genuinely want to help others and believe in teaching and sharing peace.

            Well, this one clearly does, as heā€™s trying to whitewash slavery to make his religion look better. Seems pretty nefarious to me.

            Because you think ā€œslaveryā€ means the same thing across all time

            They are ot free to leave, and can be abused by their masters at will. Itā€™s close enough.

            No, itā€™s all are equal but not everyone can have the same job and responsibilities.

            Except the high jobs and high responsiblilities are only available to men.

            You know your arguments about this sound familiar to those used by pro-segregationits. I would say something about strange bedfellows, but since youā€™re agruing for thr same thing, I guess itā€™s not so strange.

            Involuntary servitude

            Involuntary servitude

            Of course, you forget to mention how none of this forgiveness applies to women, who werenā€™t freed after six years/the debt being paid off, and could instead be forcibly taken as a wife.

            And of course slaves taken from neighbouring countries werenā€™t to be returned or freed, they were slaves for life.

            ā€œSlavesā€ under voluntary servitude were even able to ā€œseek a new masterā€. Basically find a new job.

            Voluntary servitude? Maybe.

            Were they able to get a new job under involuntary servitude? No. So slavery.

            But indentured servitude with physical abuse is still slavery, and the bible supports it. No way around it.

            Thereā€™s a saying that when democracy doesnā€™t favour conservatives, they donā€™t turn from conservatism, theyā€™ll turn on democracy. As it turns out it also applies to christans: when christians find out the bible supports slavery, they donā€™t turn of the bible, instead theyā€™ll start saying slavery was actually good. And lo and beholdā€¦

            And of course the rampant homophobia.

              • SuddenlyBlowGreen@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                Ā·
                1 year ago

                You really should listen to Dan Carlinā€™s podcasts. (Even if itā€™s not for the sake of this discussion, his content is unmatched)

                I really donā€™t care about your religious podcast, especially one that tries to whitewash slavery.

                Itā€™s not like it comes with more pay like a job. Itā€™s basically just more work.

                It does come with pay, as well and power and influence.

                Because thatā€™s what youā€™re choosing to hear. Youā€™re ignoring all the other things Iā€™ve said.

                Iā€™m hearing reality and ignoring the delusional falsehoods youā€™re saying, yes.

                Youā€™re also ignoring the part where women slaves could be forced to marry their masters, where men could not.

                But they were completely equal, right?

                Anything with abuse is abuse and is abhorrent. The Bible says as much.

                I didnā€™t say that for the part where it says how you can beat your slave.

                It didnā€™t say that for the part about dashing babies into rocks.

                It didnā€™t say that for child murder.

                No, the Bible records it. The Bible also places a huge emphasis on showing love to your neighbour and your enemy.

                Oh, I see. When something supports agenda then itā€™s the bibleā€™s core message, but when something doesnā€™t look to good for it, then itā€™s just recorded in it, and also out of context.

                How convenient.

                If you havenā€™t noticed, the bible frequently contradicts itself.

                No one here ever said slavery of any kind was good. Not in the slightest. You might be confusing your preconceptions for something I said.

                Huh, so this wasnā€™t a quote used by you?

                ā€œIn fact, there were cases in which, from a slaveā€™s point of view, the stability of servitude under a family in which the slave was well-treated would have been preferable to economic freedom.ā€

                  • SuddenlyBlowGreen@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    Ā·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    LMAO! Dan Carlin is far from religious, and the last thing he does is whitewash anything. In fact, the stuff he talks about is blood curdling and may even make you vomit everywhere.

                    Sure bud, Iā€™ll rephrase. I really donā€™t care about your totally non-religious podcast, especially one that tries to whitewash indentured servitude.

                    If youā€™re referring to those mega churches and people like the Duggars, then ya. I agree with you there and agree thatā€™s wrong.

                    Them too. But you only need to look at how the christian churches protect pedophiles and abusers, help them escape the law and reoffend again to see how much power and influence they get.

                    Plus, the catholic church alone is worth billions, with land holdings, historical artifacts, etc.

                    Becoming a high-ranking member grants you influence over your underlings and delusional people, food and shelter for the rest of your life, etc.

                    You know well that this is about judicial punishment. If a slave murders someone, for example

                    Feel free to quote the verse where it says you can only beat slaves as judicial punishment.

                    No. Itā€™s a reality and a fact that not every single word in the Bible is a commandment. There has to be context and even just basic information about events, people, cultures, etc.

                    And that context just happens to be in form of direct commandments. Oops.

                    Is it a good thing that people go on welfare, or is it preferable to starving? Again, this is where we get into the definition of the word. Think about it, how would it be preferable to be mistreated, beaten, and abused?

                    I think plenty of people would prefer to be poor and free then to be fed and a slave.

                    But if you think otherwise, would you be in favor of putting all homeless and poor people in involuntary servitude? Since itā€™s preferable to welfare and starving, according to you.

                    And then of course thereā€™s all the homophobia in the bible, but that seems to be a positive to people such as you who support sex based discrimination.