Not in a conventional literal sense, but I do fall within a spiritual literal sense.
To me there are many slaves, slaves to the law, slaves to their jobs, slaves to health care, slaves to drugs, slaves to the school system (children bound with spiritual chains to their desk, unable to run and play which free children can do.) etc, etc. Slavery is just a fact of modern day life.
Slavery is a fact of life in this world. Is it the definition of what we call slavery that is in question, is it overt or covert, and does that make a difference. Does the fear or pain change if it is overt or convert.
Wow! I was trying to figure out what the terrible noise I heard was. My irony meter was in the other room and had exploded! And it wasn’t even turned on!
You win the world record! Congratulations!
Since some others here have tried to say that “God” never required anyone to own slaves, let’s look in on the way the Midianites were treated.
To make up for his own stupid way of handling a supposed problem, “God” ordered the female survivors of the massacre to be divided according to whether they were still virgins. The non-virgins were then slaughtered. Those who still had the little tag of tissue were carried off to be wives of the monstrous butchers of their fathers, mothers, brothers, uncles, aunts, and so on. Of course, some apologists have enlightened us to the factoid that they were really only recruited for housekeeping. :rolleyes:
— I mean after all, the Holy Bible is the GOOD BOOK and couldn’t possibly have anything “dirty” in it!
And as a former one who has to interact with others who are literalists, I say you got it right. The whole point of literalism is that you take the Bible as being literally true, and then go through contortions to have it match reality. What makes this different from non-literalists is the fact that they have to go through so much contortion, while the non-literalist can admit that there are (at least) slight flaws in the Bible since it was written by humans and not God himself.
The church I grew up in would say something like, it was something that was ok at that time and place but not now or similar weasel words. Same with just about anything that we would consider wrong but still appears in the bible.
A lot of conflation between God-ordained and man-ordained law happens because of the Deuteronomic laws. Most of those were set down by the priest caste as part of the pre-monarchy when different parts of Isreal managed their tribal areas differently. The written laws grew closer and closer together and were eventually merged into a long list of laws in the Judges era near the birth of the monarchy.
It’s easy to go “These came from the priests, thus God!” instead of realizing that there wasn’t a division between priest and a judicial figure in many cases back in the olden times. So, if you are considered “wise” and are judging a trial of sorts with a priestly background and theology as your major guide, but with a large amount of social perspective, you would basically be creating laws with each judgement. These weren’t God-delivered, as some would like to believe. (A side note: the title that’s translated to “Judge” during the time of Judges wasn’t really a judge as we see them, today. They were more of a “leader.” Part of that leadership entailed settling disputes. Most often, judges came from the clergy/priest class. Sometimes they came from war heroes. Sometimes they came from foreign appointments - e.g. Egypt at certain times when they ruled the Levant. During the monarchy, this became the purview of the monarch with the priest caste still bearing some of the burden, especially outside the crown’s city.)
Because of this, I personally consider these laws were not divinely ordained.
It’s a law set down to determine if it was rape. Basically, even if it meant your death, you were required to call out and say that you were being forced. It was a social requirement of the culture of the time. We have added a lot of different aspects to how we define rape in differing situations, but we can’t backwards project our understandings and opinions on another culture in another time and expect it to mesh up.
Thus, if you were in a city and were crying for help, you would not be stoned to death (assuming you survived the knife to the throat). If, however, you were forced (whether true or not) in the country where you couldn’t have been heard, you wouldn’t be stoned. It’s assumed you performed your social duty to call out, even with out evidence that you did so.
When reading the Old Testament about treatment of women, you have to remember the social construct of women in the Old Testament: They were property. Whether you agree with or take issue with that is not what I’m going for here. But when you read the rules from the Old Testament, you have to understand that the statements such as the deflowering of your unbetrothed daughter and getting silver for it, you are basically being paid for the reduction in value of property. For example, you could betroth your virgin daughter to Farmer Jim down the way for 100 silver. Now that she’s no longer a virgin, you could only hope to get 50 silver from Farmer Jim. That’s why the payment was mandated.
Disclaimer: I’m not a biblical literalist. Too much of it is couched in euphemism and metaphor to be taken literally in the first place, much less 2,000 - 5,000 years after it’s components were originally written (and in another language without presence of the same idioms as the originating language.)
Don’t pretend there isn’t a huge difference between your “examples” and true enslavement. People who slave away at their jobs do so by choice. People get addicted to drugs and alcohol and gambling, but those things don’t own them, buy and sell them on a whim, mistreat them, get rid of their kids, etc.
Your example of kids in school vs. “free kids” makes absolutely no sense. Are all kids supposed to run around with no education at all because it makes them do homework?
And WTF is a slave to health care? Someone who goes to the doctor or the gym?
I’m not sure why everyone’s focused on the Old Testament here. Sure, there are more verses mentioning slavery in the OT, but the NT has an entire book that is nothing more than Paul trying to reconcile a runaway slave with his master, encouraging the slave to return to his master. Philemon was one of the major texts cited by American slavery supporters in the eighteenth and nineteenth century.
Also, in what way was Roman slavery really all that different than American slavery? Both systems imported human beings from foreign places and sold them in their homeland. Both systems treated slaves as property, able to be resold, beaten, or killed more or less at will. In both systems, children of slaves remained slaves by birth and the property of the parents owner. Honestly, the only major difference I can see is that in American slavery racism was a dominant part of the justification for slavery, while in Roman slavery racism was a component but not the largest one.
DrFidelius already took care of that argument by declaring Paul a bit of an ass. That was simple.
And Jesus declaring that a slave that knows better and disobeys being beaten with many blows and the one that doesn’t know any better gets beaten with few blows? Well, that was just a metaphor. That it seems the metaphor agrees that that’s how slaves should be treated is irrelevant…since it’s a metaphor and all. See how simply slavery in the Bible that is endorsed by God can be brushed aside? I really love the “but it doesn’t say that you HAVE to have a slave” arguments. They’re so precious.
I know, right ? It’s like men invented their god rather than the other way around. Very puzzling. Ah well, He works in mysterious ways and what are we poor sinners to do or understand about it, amirite ?
Return and reconcile, but as a brother, not as a slave.
"For this is perhaps why he was parted from you for a while, that you might have him back forever, no longer as a slave, as a beloved brother—especially to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord. So if you consider me your partner, welcome him as you would welcome me. If he has wronged you in any way, or owes you anything, charge that to my account. I, Paul, am writing this with my own hand: I will repay it. "
Also if Paul had been a normal law-abiding citizen of the time, he’d just have sent Onesimus back rather than attempt to reconcile. Finally, tradition indicates Onesimus was indeed set free.
