A Succinct Explanation For Why The Bible Doesn't Outright Ban Slavery
From mrscrib:
"This is tricky. [b]Slavery itself was a way to avoid unnecessary killing when two subsistence level tribes went to war.[/b] Instead of killing the women and children, they would be taken into slavery to help keep them alive after their men had been slaughtered. On a biological level, this allowed their genes to survive, while on a moral level, it meant not leaving them to die because they could no longer feed and/or protect themselves from the wild as well as other tribes.
[b]Given this context, slavery was the least bad choice.[/b] It invited abuse, though that could have been because of many factors, including the basic ability to feed the slaves. Sacrificing a slave to appease the gods for a better crop would have been a matter of expedience -- even if the gods were not appeased, it was one less mouth to feed that was not of the tribe.
You mention selling children into slavery. AFAIK, no one has ever gotten rich selling their own offspring (excepting the parents of popular child celebrities). It is a desperation move, as much an attempt to find a place for the child to eat as anything else. It happens in starvation situations. Debts due, food shortages, etc.
Which is why the Bible did provide moral guidance for slavery. If it was going to happen, the Bible would help minimize the abuses. At the time it was a part of life -- a necessary part of the survival of ancient communities. It was not in and of itself a moral good, but a tool. How it was administered determined whether the masters could still consider themselves moral.
Today we have the luxury of scoffing at slavery. But that's because we are no longer living at the subsistence level. Should we ever return, God forbid, we will have to once again decide what is the least awful choice."
Just gotta remind ourselves it was a different time with completely different challenges.
"This is tricky. [b]Slavery itself was a way to avoid unnecessary killing when two subsistence level tribes went to war.[/b] Instead of killing the women and children, they would be taken into slavery to help keep them alive after their men had been slaughtered. On a biological level, this allowed their genes to survive, while on a moral level, it meant not leaving them to die because they could no longer feed and/or protect themselves from the wild as well as other tribes.
[b]Given this context, slavery was the least bad choice.[/b] It invited abuse, though that could have been because of many factors, including the basic ability to feed the slaves. Sacrificing a slave to appease the gods for a better crop would have been a matter of expedience -- even if the gods were not appeased, it was one less mouth to feed that was not of the tribe.
You mention selling children into slavery. AFAIK, no one has ever gotten rich selling their own offspring (excepting the parents of popular child celebrities). It is a desperation move, as much an attempt to find a place for the child to eat as anything else. It happens in starvation situations. Debts due, food shortages, etc.
Which is why the Bible did provide moral guidance for slavery. If it was going to happen, the Bible would help minimize the abuses. At the time it was a part of life -- a necessary part of the survival of ancient communities. It was not in and of itself a moral good, but a tool. How it was administered determined whether the masters could still consider themselves moral.
Today we have the luxury of scoffing at slavery. But that's because we are no longer living at the subsistence level. Should we ever return, God forbid, we will have to once again decide what is the least awful choice."
Just gotta remind ourselves it was a different time with completely different challenges.