Hate Mail

Jonathan Boyd, Page 3

August 26, 2001:

Concerning slavery:

Did a fair bit of reading through the Books of the Law to find stuff about it. I'll start by refuting the claim that the Bible says black people make good slaves. I was reading a book called Soul Survivor by a guy called Phillip Yancey (best Christian writer I've ever read, along with CS Lewis) in which he talks about his early years and who the church had lied to him, manipulated the Bible to further its views on the world, rather than changing its views to match what the Bible said. He tells of how his local pastor had spoken about Ham being cursed by Noah to be a slave, Ham meaning dark skinned. I believe you have something about this on your site and it may well be there because certain white supremacist Christians have tried to tell it to you. The story, however, is a lie. In Genesis 9:18-27, Canaan, Ham's _son_ is made a slave to his brothers as a punishment.

Genesis 9:26-27: "He also said, "Blessed be the LORD, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem. May God extend the territory of Japheth; may Japheth live in the tents of Shem, and may Canaan be his slave.""

It does not explicitly say whether the curse on Canaan also extended to Ham's other sons, but it does explicitly say that Shem and Japheth get special privileges that Ham does not. The fact that the descendants of Canaan are treated even worse than the descendants of Ham's other sons does not help your cause.

Not only is it not Ham that is made a slave, but the reason is not down to race. Even if it had been Ham, to claim that racism was involved would be an unwarranted assumption. If race was the issue, he would have been made a slave prior to the building of the ark, not well beforehand.

Of course Canaan himself wasn't a race, but his descendants were, and they were cursed by Noah. I can't believe I actually need to explain these things to you!

But now to slavery in general. Exodus 22:21 instructs the Israelites not to oppress or ill-treat aliens (foreigners). Exodus 23:9 says the same thing.

You are using vague language (mistreatment, which may or may not preclude slavery since the Israelites didn't consider it unjust to enslave foreigners) in order to contradict explicit language condoning slavery.

Leviticus 22:11 (It's OK for priests to keep slaves, but they have to let them eat their food) "But if a priest buys a slave with money, or if a slave is born in his household, that slave may eat his food."

Leviticus 25:42-44 (It's bad to sell Israelites, but it's OK to enslave foreigners) "Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God. Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves."

Exodus 21:2-4 (Hebrew slaves can only be kept for 6 years, but if you give them wives and they have children, the children become your property) "If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free."

Exodus 21:20-21 (It's OK to beat a slave as long as he doesn't die) "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property."

Exodus 22:3 (Thieves who can't make restitution must be sold into slavery) "A thief must certainly make restitution, but if he has nothing, he must be sold to pay for his theft."

Ephesians 6:5 (Paul reminds slaves to respect, fear, and obey their masters. He would repeat this sentiment in Colossians 3:22 and 1 Peter 2:18) "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ."

1 Timothy 6:1 (It would be bad for slaves to disrespect their masters. He would repeat this sentiment in Titus 2:9) "All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered."

Had enough?

Leviticus 19:33-34 is similar and also instructs them to love aliens as themselves.

Too bad it repeatedly condones enslaving those aliens later, in Leviticus 22:11 and Leviticus 25:42-44. During the period of American black slavery, many white slave owners claimed that their slaves were well treated. It didn't seem to occur to them that it was wrong to keep slaves no matter how well you claim to treat them, and you obviously don't understand that either. The Bible explicitly, repeatedly condones slavery. This fact is in no way mitigated by the the fact that it prohibits mistreatment of those you have been authorized to enslave.

Deuteronomy 23:15-16 instructs Israelites to protect and look after any slave that runs away from his master.

Wrong. As usual, you take quotes out of context. You "forgot" to include the fact that this rule applies to slaves that have run to you and away from foreign masters, while you are "encamped against your enemies" (a few lines before the passage you mention). It does not apply to slaves owned by Israelites.

These all lay down the conditions under which not just slaves, but foreigners in general, should be treated. Clearly the way Israelites treat slaves is very different to how we would envisage slaves being treated on say a southern cotton plantation. Israeli slaves seem to have the right to run away from their master and in doing so, make themselves free. Not the familiar concept of slavery, really.

Don't be ridiculous. Slaves were not permitted to run away and go free at will. As usual, you ignore the context out of which you take your quotes. Deuteronomy 23:15 applied to slaves running away from foreign masters, not Hebrew masters.

[Editor's note: How curious that Exodus would describe a fixed term of 6 years before a Hebrew slave can go free (without explaining how long foreign slaves are to be kept), when all he has to do is simply run away! How curious that it also describes slaves as "property" when in fact, the great Jonathan Boyd has determined that in antiquity, slaves were permitted to free themselves at will! He had better go and tell all of the historians about his revelation, since they've apparently been teaching lies for all these years]

It is true that God permitted slavery, but only if the slaves were non-Israelites, as we can read in Leviticus 25:39-46.

And that makes it OK? Are you on drugs?

Given the way in which slaves are to be treated, it seems that slavery holds the same kind of position as divorce, in God's eyes. He would rather it did not happen, but since it inevitably is going to, he is laying down stricts conditions for it.

Don't make any more weak excuses. Blasphemy, prostitution, and premarital sex are all inevitable as well, but that didn't stop God from prohibiting them. God didn't prohibit slavery because he didn't have a problem with it. The fact that it was rampant at the time does not mean that he felt impotent to stop it; it only means that the savages who wrote the Bible didn't know there was anything wrong with it.

Conditions in which the slaves have rights, are well looked after and loved. The term 'slavery' as used today, isn't really applicable to the Israelite concept.

Yes, it is. Any time human beings are considered "property", it is slavery. It has been said that even the most comfortable prison is still a prison, and slavery is an abomination regardless of whether the slave is well looked after. Your excuses are laughable, and you would have fit in very well with the American slave owners. They, too, claimed to care about the treatment of slaves, without comprehending that slavery itself is wrong.

Concerning the second set of Ten Commandments:

Found additional support for my interpretation of Exodus 34 in Deuteronomy 10:1-4, which retells the story. Deut 10:4 says 'The LORD wrote on these tablets what he had written before, the Ten Commandments he had proclaimed to you on the mountain'

The contradiction is repeated. So what?

Concerning females:

You claimed that no females were ever anointed by God or sent as prophetesses in the Old testament. In Judges 4:4, however, we see that Deborah, a woman, is a prophetess and the current leader of Israel.

She only settled disputes, during a time in which Israel was suffering because it had done "evil". She needed to ask a man (Barak) to form and then lead an army of men against their enemies in order to restore Israel in God's eyes. If she's your best example, then you're not doing yourself any good. It is arguably a valid nitpick, but a nitpick nonetheless.

[Editor's note: if this is the only example of a woman coming close to power that he can find in the enormity of the entire Bible with its huge cast of characters, then he is proving my point for me. Deborah ruled during a time when the Israelites had done "evil in the eyes of the Lord", and Israel was favoured again after she started sharing power with a man, Barak]

I vaguely recall some mention of the 144,000 singers in Revelation 14:1-5 on your page about women. As I recall, you listed the facts that these were all men and also men that had not defiled themselves with women, as proof of God's dislike and prejudice against women.

Wrong. I listed it as proof of God's hatred for the beautiful and natural act of sex between a man and a woman.

I beg to differ. The only reference to them all being male is the sentence 'They were purchased from among men.' It is likely from this that they were all male, but not, however conclusive. 'men' could be used in the same sense as we use 'mankind.'

Do you really think this weaselly semantics nonsense is going to fool anyone? A bunch of men is a bunch of males. No one looks at a bunch of females and says that they are men.

Even if they were all men, this doesn't mean that only men are going to Heaven. These are described as the only 144,000 who could learn a particular song. It doesn't say that they are the only people going to Heaven.

It does, however, make it quite clear that men should not have sex with women. If everyone on Earth obeyed Biblical edicts and remained "pure", the human race would have died out!

You seem to think that none of them could possibly have had sex and that any act of sex means you are defiling yourself, according to this passage. That would flatly contradict what the rest of the Bible says, so the interpretation must be wrong.

Nonsense. The Bible repeatedly makes it clear that sexual relations are considered impure, even between a man and a woman. For example, in Exodus 19:15, the Israelites were told to abstain from all sexual relations of any kind before they could meet God. For that matter, sex is almost never mentioned in a favourable light in the Bible unless it relates to procreation, or the rape of female prisoners of war. In Matthew 5:28, Jesus even makes sexual desire a sin.

And what does Jesus think of marriage? See Luke 20:34-36: "Jesus replied, "The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. But those who are considered worthy of taking part in that age and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God's children, since they are children of the resurrection." In other words, those who are considered "worthy" will not get married (Paul echoed this sentiment later).

God hates sex. Accept it. The 144,000 "pure" were celibate.

A much more logical interpretation of 'These are those who did not defile themselves with women,' is that the people did not commit any act of sexual immorality with a woman, e.g. sex outside of marriage.

Your definition of "logical" is rather curious, since Jesus' distaste for sex in all its forms is made quite clear, Paul echoed the sentiment, and Revelations is in the New Testament, not the Old Testament.

Passages can not simply be lifted out and examined on their own. They must be interpreted within the context of the rest of the Bible.

Then why don't you do that, instead of interpeting things in a manner completely contrary to the way anyone would interpret them if he could see the entire chapter?

Anyway, I hope that this proves illuminating and if you have any response, could you please attach it to the reply to the other mail, if convenient? Thank you.

It is very illuminating with regards to your personality, but you've provided nothing new about the Bible itself.

Continue to Jonathan Boyd, Page 4

Jump to sub-page:

Jump to: