If slavery is a fire, kidnapping is the coal that fueled it.
King Alfonso I, who ruled over the Kongo Empire, wrote the following to the king of Portugal:
“Each day the traders are kidnapping our people—children of this country, sons of our nobles and vassals, even people of our own family. This corruption and depravity are so widespread that our land is entirely depopulated. We need in this kingdom only priests and schoolteachers, and no merchandise, unless it is wine and flour for Mass. It is our wish that this Kingdom not be a place for the trade or transport of slaves.
It’s also no secret that modern day sex trafficking and slavery hinges greatly on kidnapping: “Traffickers kidnap their victims, and then drug them or secure them so they cannot escape”
A small search on the web and you'll find the stories of people who were both kidnaped, or were doing the kidnapping: "Three people are facing charges of human sex trafficking and kidnapping in St. Lucie County."
In contrast, Scripture prohibits the very engine that drives slavery. Some would argue the penalty goes not only to the kidnapper, but to the person who bought them: “He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death.” – Exodus 21:16.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
First things first that passage relates to Hebrew slaves! You are also allowed to buy slaves from the heathens around you, they do not get freed after 6 years... so please point me to the passage that god commands people to question how those slaves became slaves!?!
Your lack of understanding even this basic principle is astonishing... also most slaves shipped from Africa in recent history were sold by their own people or other tribes in surroundings areas, this sounds oddly familiar doesn't it.... hmmmmm
Perhaps I'm blind, but the verse doesn't mention slaves or Hebrews does it? It mentions kidnapping and selling. Maybe I need to put my atheist glasses on to see it.
You're right though, African's selling their own people does sound familiar. It sounds like this other verse which more specifically prohibits selling your own people: "If a man is found stealing one of his brothers of the people of Israel, and if he treats him as a slave or sells him, then that thief shall die. So you shall purge the evil from your midst." Deut 24:7.
Your comment proves you have little understand on this subject
The beautiful thing about having little understanding, is that you can be educated. So educate me.
No problem go back and read my posts on this and the last op then answer my questions or address my comments, I want to get a base understanding of what you know. It's hard to judge knowledge when people avoid answering questions
What I know is what pertains to the OP. That's all I'm interested in, I'm blind to everything else for the purpose of the conversation. Actually, let's pretend the entire Bible is truly a slave-loving fairytale. Great, what does that mean for the OP?
The verse says don't steal people and sell them. History has shown stealing people and selling them is the vital organ of slavery. So.. is there anything wrong with that verse? Is there anything wrong with claiming that if people didn't kidnap and sell other's, the slave-trade and even American slavery, wouldn't have happened?
And again the verse only speaks for HEBREW SLAVES!!!!! It says nothing about the heathen slaves that you buy!
So you are using the verse out of context in order to defend, you are actively lying in order to prove your point.
You choose to ignore counter argument against your OP...
Where do you see the words Hebrew or Slaves? Can you highlight the words for me?
“He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death.” – Exodus 21:16.
In contrast, Scripture prohibits the very engine that drives slavery. Some would argue the penalty goes not only to the kidnapper, but to the person who bought them: “He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death.” – Exodus 21:16
You are speaking on slavery are you not? are you so dim witted that you need my guidance on your OP?
Under your logic or lack their of.... your verse doesn't say women, the Bible according to this verse allows you to steal and traffic women at your leisure!
The title of the thread is Slavery, but the OP is about something very specific.
Also note that your claim is: "The verse only speaks for HEBREW SLAVES!!!!" You say this to the exclusion of everyone else. Unless I've forgotten to read, the verse doesn't say such a thing, nor exclude anyone. It doesn't even exclude women. You can call the Bible sexist for using the Masculine Generic, but you cannot say the verse excludes woman, precisely because the Bible uses the Masculine Generic.
Exclusion is your logic, not mine.
Wow this is hard...
You said the Bible PROHIBITS the driving factor for slavery!!!!! I am explaining to you that the law you are quoting from the Bible was referring to Hebrew slaves... so unless you can add what bible thinks regarding heathen slaves then you are LYING IN YOUR OP...
Do you understand?????????
I understood what you said from the beginning. But you've merely stated so repeatedly without explanation. As it stands the language of the verse does not lend itself to your statement. If it did the verse might read thus:
"Whoever steals a Hebrew Slave and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death."
But it doesn't.
" if people didn't kidnap and sell other's, the slave-trade and even American slavery, wouldn't have happened?"
It DID happen though, and the bible was cited by southern Christian slave owners because it condones it. This seems to be the main stumbling block to your game of hide and seek with the facts. It's quite funny to watch though you stick your fingers in your ears and scream I'm not listening though. Could it be that those who think slavery if morally acceptable don't apply the same standards rights and laws to what they consider to be property? I wonder how much longer you'll ingore this question before you accuse me of repeating myself.
It's OK to sell your daughters into slavery.
Exodus 21:7 (CEB) ="When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shouldn’t be set free in the same way as male slaves are set free."
Need some cash? Sell your kids into slavery.
Nehemiah 5:5 (ERV) = "We are as good as the others. Our sons are as good as their sons. But we will have to sell our sons and daughters as slaves. Some of us have already had to sell our daughters as slaves. There is nothing we can do. We have already lost our fields and vineyards. Other people own them now.”
God is a slave trader.
Joel 3:8 (LEB) = "I will sell your sons and your daughters into the hand of the children of Judah, and they will sell them to the Sabeans and to a nation far away, for Yahweh has spoken."
Still no verses from the bible condoning slavery.
Lol you mean condemning? Yeah, I'm sure you did.
I meant condone, not condemning.
That doesn't make sense. You are saying the Bible doesn't condone slavery. I thought you're supposed to be against the Bible not for it.
what? How about::: Slaves, obey your masters
"In contrast, Scripture prohibits the very engine that drives slavery. Some would argue the penalty goes not only to the kidnapper, but to the person who bought them: “He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death.” – Exodus 21:16."
Well the KJV says steal not kidnap, and since slaves were property, well you see where I'm going. The bible says quite specifically that Hebrews can buy and own slaves as property, pass them onto their children as property, and even beat them to death, as long as they don't die within 48 hours of the beating.
You've allowed your bias to let you be convinced by apologetics that the bible somehow prohibits something that it quite specifically endorses, in unequivocal language, citing a passage that is vague and to say the least a very tenuous defence. It doesn't sound remotely plausible that people who thought it perfectly moral to buy and own slaves, meant those slaves to be protected by the same laws and rights they wrote for themselves.
To prove how absurd this claim is one has only to see that In America slaves were kidnapped, owned bought, raped, tortured and killed with impunity, and this despite the fact that the second paragraph in the Declaration of Independence states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”
Now why is it so hard to believe the Mosaic laws didn't apply equally to slaves, if at all?
I'm confused, if you steal a person, have you not kidnapped them?
"I'm confused, if you steal a person, have you not kidnapped them?"
Were African American slaves at liberty, and pursuing happiness? Only the US had no problem declaring that all men were entitled to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, whilst denying all of that to slaves.You see the contradiction does not arise if you recognise slavery as acceptable, which American Christian slave owners, and Hebrew slave owners clearly did. You see it's unlikely the Hebrews considered slaves as deserving the full protection of the law, as they were property you see. Just as it's clear rich Christian American slave owners didn't see any contradiction as they didn't consider their African American slaves as men in the sense the deceleration of independence means.
Now we know unequivocally the bible says it was acceptable to buy and own slaves, so there is only a contradiction with your biased interpretation that ignores what the text says, and if the law about kidnapping applied to slaves, which it clearly could not have or else there;d have been no slaves. Occam's razor seems apropos.
So, because the United States said one thing but did another, suddenly we have insight into the Hebrew world over 3,000 years ago?
"So, because the United States said one thing but did another, suddenly we have insight into the Hebrew world over 3,000 years ago?"
You see how slaves are regarded as property and not regarded in the same context as their masters right? So the laws that a society applies to it's people would be unlikely to apply to slaves. Thus there is no contradiction, unless you ignore what the bible is saying, as you are attempting to do by cherry picking one vague part and trying to use it to pretend the unequivocal specific claims it makes justifying slavery are not really there. It was an analogous comparison in the hope you'd see your flawed reasoning, but it was always a long shot, as you prefer cheap point scoring to reasoned argument.
Are you really claiming slaves quite clearly described by the bible as property to be bought, sold and beaten with impunity, were likely to be treated equally under Mosaic law? That's absurdly stupid, and I really can't believe you don't see that.
What's vague about about the verse? Don't steal people and don't sell them.
In all the excitement you missed my question:
Are you really claiming slaves quite clearly described by the bible as property to be bought, sold and beaten with impunity, were likely to be treated equally under Mosaic law? That's absurdly stupid, and I really can't believe you don't see that.
Now what verse says they considered owning slaves to be stealing and kidnap? Also how do you explain that in Exodus 21 the bible plainly condones buying and selling people as slaves, and doesn't anywhere claim this was wrong or that it was kidnapping? That's your assertion and it contradicts what the bible says.
In fact have you any evidence that the Mosaic moratorium on kidnapping extended to slaves, and if so how did they sell, buy and own slaves at all? You seem to want to buy and own slaves without ever acquiring them. You sound very confused tbh.
+
"I'm confused, if you steal a person, have you not kidnapped them?"
Can you quote in Exodus where it says the slave owners considered this kidnapping?
Let me help you on the lack of bible verses condoning slavery. Just a few websites.
https://godisimaginary.com/i13.htm
https://www.openbible.info/topics/slavery
http://www.evilbible.com/evil-bible-home-page/slavery/
Let me help you with the definition of condoning.
-accept and allow (behavior that is considered morally wrong or offensive) to continue (Oxford English Dictionary).
Pages