-->
@Lit
Do you think that's the type of slavery OP is referring to?
Does the Bible Really Support Slavery?
Posts
Total:
80
-->
@Mopac
"I'm just following orders" didn't work for the Nazis.
-->
@drafterman
No, I think they're aiming for talking about the owning of another person but brought up a verse that wasn't alluding to it.
@drafterman who has me blocked
Those who resisted the soviets were accounted as having resisted anti-Christ. Many saints were martyred in those days which were not really so distant.
Insofar as our submission to authority compromises the faith, that is when there is issue. But those who gave the order for evil will certainly be judged more harshly.
Those who judge a man for doing evil in obedience, can you say you do not do evil of your own accord? We have all done evil, and far worse it is to do evil in freedom than to do evil in bondage. A soldier doesn't know what evils he fights for, only that he is told that he fights for good. Lord have mercy on the soldier, and also on them that judge the soldier unjustly.
-->
@Jarrett_Ludolph
Ephesians 6:5 and Titus 2:9-10 seem to be clearly demanding that slaves obey and be submissive to their masters. it says that slaves should obey their earthly masters, just how they would obey Christ. this seems more of a command then a recognition of a part of reality.
Would a better command have been to advise slaves to disobey their earthly masters?
-->
@Theweakeredge
No, the fact that god did not PROHIBIT slavery that shows that he condoned it. It is the fact that he is saying that you are allowed to own people as property and beat them.
That is not a fact. That is just your interpretation of the verse. God did prohibit slavery, and the bible asserts that it is not possible to own people as property.
"Steal a man and sell him" nothing about keeping the man as a slave.
Untrue. The rest of the verse says even if the stolen man is found in the thiefs possession (before any possible sale) the penalty is still death.
The fact of the matter is, the "slavery" you are referring to is not the slavery the bible is referring to. This is why the bible seems inconsistent to you.
The bible teaches that...
1. Men cannot own another man. God owns all men.
2. That a man can sell his debt. His services, not his person.
3. Slavery does not free the believer from having to obey God
Ancient Hebrews did not think men could be owned by other men, so a specific command condemning slavery would not have made sense. Plus, other commandments adequately cover slavery.
Applying today's PC values on ancient people is always a mistake, and brings illogical conclusions.
Basically the atheist is saying, "God's morality should be the same as mine." Why this belief should be given any respect, is a mystery to me.
-->
@ethang5
What? Cite the specific verses that agree with your conclusion, and no, the bible goes back and forth on the point you are trying to make in fact some verses even say "Take your slaves from the nations around you." The bible is radically contradictory on this point, but a lot more goes on to inhibit then to prohibit. You go on this rant about PC culture, yet I don't see you responding to the other criticisms, you pick and choose when you want to go in because you rarely ever actually use logic to come to your conclusions, more often you just continously assert that your position is logical, and that people who disagree are being illogical. The type of "slavery" that is being talked about there is "Slavery to sin".... its hilarious how you cry out "CONTEXT CONTEXT" Yet most of the things you cite you don't even know the context of, let's look at it shall we?
John 8:31-36 To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." They answered him, "We are Abraham's descendents and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?" Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed."
"I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin." He's saying that every living person is a slave to sin, but by believing in him, you will be set free. That's what Jesus is talking about here, and its funny how people misinterpret that. Also, what about the times whenever he clearly states that you can beat your slaves and not be punished as long as they don't die because they are quote, "your money". Funny how you seem to forget those verses exist.
-->
@Theweakeredge
What? Cite the specific verses that agree with your conclusion,
What conclusion would that be? You do not believe the bible, and think the verses that "condone" slavery overwhelm the ones that don't, what would a verse quote do for you now?
...and no, the bible goes back and forth on the point you are trying to make in fact some verses even say "Take your slaves from the nations around you."
And the word "slave" in those verses do not mean what you say it does, and that can be shown objectively.
The bible is radically contradictory on this point, but a lot more goes on to inhibit then to prohibit.
It is your misunderstanding that causes you to think the bible is contradictory on this point. It isn't.
You go on this rant about PC culture, yet I don't see you responding to the other criticisms, you pick and choose when you want to go in because you rarely ever actually use logic to come to your conclusions, more often you just continously assert that your position is logical, and that people who disagree are being illogical.
So then challenge a logical point. It is possible my logic just goes over your head.
The type of "slavery" that is being talked about there is "Slavery to sin".... its hilarious how you cry out "CONTEXT CONTEXT" Yet most of the things you cite you don't even know the context of, let's look at it shall we?
OK, but I hope you know, "The type of "slavery" that is being talked about there is "Slavery to sin" was not my comment.
John 8:31-36 To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." They answered him, "We are Abraham's descendents and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?" Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed."
"I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin." He's saying that every living person is a slave to sin, but by believing in him, you will be set free. That's what Jesus is talking about here, and its funny how people misinterpret that.
I will allow whomever brought that up to address it.
Also, what about the times whenever he clearly states that you can beat your slaves and not be punished as long as they don't die because they are quote, "your money". Funny how you seem to forget those verses exist.
I forgot nothing. That verse says they are your money, as in your investment, not as your property. The reason beating slaves (and not only slaves) back then was that we had no societal systems like jails and police and courts. It still is not proof that slaves were owned as property.
In most of the world today, children are still commonly beaten. But those that live in the west get bamboozled by their environment, and think theirs is the only moral way. A slave in biblical times was working off a debt. Harming him would harm the master's investment and did not make sense.
The prohibition and punishment for the master who maimed or killed a slave was not condoning slavery but to prevent them from thinking they owned the slave and thus taking undue advantage of them.
Your only experience with slavery is the movies you've seen about the American south, so you view the slavery in the bible through that lens. That is incorrect. The slavery in the bible was indentured servitude, and was entered into voluntarily by the slave. He sold his debt, (a thing still done today) not his person.
Which is why, unlike the American south, a master suffered a penalty for harming or killing his slave.
What conclusion would that be? You do not believe the bible, and think the verses that "condone" slavery overwhelm the ones that don't, what would a verse quote do for you now?
"The bible teaches that...1. Men cannot own another man. God owns all men.2. That a man can sell his debt. His services, not his person.3. Slavery does not free the believer from having to obey GodAncient Hebrews did not think men could be owned by other men, so a specific command condemning slavery would not have made sense. Plus, other commandments adequately cover slavery."
All of the above, just to demonstrate that you actually have any footing at all
I forgot nothing. That verse says they are your money, as in your investment, not as your property. The reason beating slaves (and not only slaves) back then was that we had no societal systems like jails and police and courts. It still is not proof that slaves were owned as property.
"Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property." Exodus 21: 20-21
God could have established any of the above if he chose to, he could have said, "You shalt not own slaves" period, but he didn't, instead, there are loopy and contradictory passages that we are debating over now. I guess you were right about one thing, most of this isn't a logic thing, it's a you ignoring evidence that points to the opposite conclusion.
In most of the world today, children are still commonly beaten. But those that live in the west get bamboozled by their environment, and think theirs is the only moral way. A slave in biblical times was working off a debt. Harming him would harm the master's investment and did not make sense.
They are people who work for no pay and can be beaten at their masters transgression.... hmmmm. Even the bible calls them property and money interchangably, the point is that in the eyes of the bible these "indentured servants" don't have the same rights as everyone else, and they are treated as essential slaves if they weren't technically them. "working off a debt" interesting claim there, you have examples of some slaves working off a debt, yet that doesn't at all prove that all of them are. In fact, I would argue that the distinction in the bible between servant and slave clearly shows that these things are different. "Harming him would harm the master's investment and did not make sense" That's the same argument that slavers made in the south... just saying. As they were also "investments"
The prohibition and punishment for the master who maimed or killed a slave was not condoning slavery but to prevent them from thinking they owned the slave and thus taking undue advantage of them.
Thats incorrect..... because it literally said in the verse I cited that you could beat them as long as they didn't die.... with a rod.... similar to the tools that english and American slavers used before the whip..... hmmmmm.... I wonder what that's referring to? The punishment was most probably to save some sort of face to make them feel some percentage better about themselves, but theologically speaking, the reason that the punishment for doing these crimes was lesser for slaves than for other humans? Because it was dehumanizing them, a establishing trait in chattel slavery, just like the bible did to animals...... look, theres a pattern, don't want to alarm you.
Your only experience with slavery is the movies you've seen about the American south, so you view the slavery in the bible through that lens. That is incorrect. The slavery in the bible was indentured servitude, and was entered into voluntarily by the slave. He sold his debt, (a thing still done today) not his person.
Hahahahahahaha! Your arrogance is noted and cast away, first of all, I've seen one movie about chattel slavery in my entire life, most of it comes from studying the documentation of the time from both the north, the south, and the slaves who managed to learn how to write, one famous example you might have heard of is one, Frederick Douglass. That's an example of something I've read. Its not the only thing I've read though, and I have heard and subsequently looked into serfdom and things similar. Funnily enough, in most records, they drew a line at physical punishment unless bills were overdo, though a lot of collectors were like that overall. Another difference is that yes, in indentured servatude you weren't seen as property as much. So... the fact that the bible calls them property kind of completely debunks you there.... Also, voluntarily? "You may take your slaves from the nations around you" Or that one time after a battle god said to "Not kill the woman or children and take them for yourself". Hmm..... voluntarily. Another thing, there was always a clear distinction in the law for "god's people" and everyone else, gods people being treated noticeably better by him and with more prohibitions amongst them.
Which is why, unlike the American south, a master suffered a penalty for harming or killing his slave.
Uh uh uh, you can't get away with that, certain overseers in the south would actually suffer penalties for too much harm to a slave, and this "penalty" only applies if the slave didn't die in a day or two, and if that slave specifically lost their eye.... that isn't an abuseable system at all - no sir. "Logical" pfff
-->
@Jarrett_Ludolph
The bible is a book and perhaps supports the leg of a wobbly table.
The various records and stories found within the bible, would suggest that "slavery" was a commonplace practice and expectation during "biblical times".
As slavery still is today, but to a much lesser degree....Perhaps.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Uh huh, so in other words, it doesn't matter that the bible condones slavery? Because that's what this is about, lets not change the subject here - the Bible condones slavery.
MOPAC =/= FUNDAMENTALIST
-->
@zedvictor4
As slavery still is today, but to a much lesser degree....Perhaps.
Here’s what Chinese law says about prison labor practices:
‘COMBINING EDUCATION AND LABOR’
China had 1.7 million people in 680 prisons as of 2018, said the director of prison administration under the Ministry of Justice, in an interview with the official Xinhua news agency in January last year.
Labor is a part of the punishment process, according to the law.
"Prisons will combine punishment and reform for criminals, with the principle of combining education and labor, to change criminals into law-abiding citizens," according to the prison law. here
Safeguards are in place, it says.
According to the same law, prisoners usually work eight hours a day in manufacturing work. If they must work beyond eight hours, they have to report to the head of the prison and receive his or her permission.
Sleeping time must not be less than eight hours, the same law says.
In Shanghai, workers on average can receive up to 600 yuan ($85.57) a month for their work, according to the law.
It is unclear which companies the prisoners supply.
A report from state-backed Beijing News found that a Liaoning prison in China’s northeast controlled businesses in near 20 different industries from cars to construction. [LINK]
-->
@Theweakeredge
"Take your slaves from the nations around you."
Yep.
"You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly." [LINK]
I guess some people are more equal than others.
-->
@ethang5
God did prohibit slavery, and the bible asserts that it is not possible to own people as property.
Well, you can't own ISRAELITES.
SPECIFICALLY, ISRAELITES.
"Take your slaves from the nations around you."
"You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly." [LINK]
I guess some people are more equal than others.
-->
@ethang5
Would a better command have been to advise slaves to disobey their earthly masters?
YES.
-->
@Mopac
A soldier doesn't know what evils he fights for, only that he is told that he fights for good.
Well stated.
-->
@drafterman
-->
@Theweakeredge
The type of "slavery" that is being talked about there is "Slavery to sin".... its hilarious how you cry out "CONTEXT CONTEXT" Yet most of the things you cite you don't even know the context of, let's look at it shall we?John 8:31-36 To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." They answered him, "We are Abraham's descendents and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?" Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.""I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin." He's saying that every living person is a slave to sin, but by believing in him, you will be set free. That's what Jesus is talking about here, and its funny how people misinterpret that.
But this one tells people to never submit to the yoke of slavery:"For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery." - Galatians 5:1
Jarrett's aim was probably to focus on slavery in the typical sense but provided a verse that doesn't talk about that type of slavery.
The bible does not support slavery to sin. Sin is lawlessness. All the law and prophets hang on two commandments, Love for God as the first commandment and Love for others as oneself as the second. This translates to the bible not supporting the owning of other people as a concept God wills as well, because a slave and master aren't exempt from being human and being social and relational. An earthly master under the authority of Christ renders chattel slavery and other typical types a moot suspicion. Yeah... you may have this person for their service, but don't act like you own own them for your pleasure to threaten or beat, because you don't.
-->
@Lit
I mean... their are literally verse talking about how you won't be punished if the slave survives a beating because that slave is your property..... I quoted it earlier, the bible clearly shows numerous signs that the slaves are dehumanized, they are property, and they are set free based on time - not wages - because lemme tell ya something indentured servitude is a form of slavery
-->
@Lit
Well, you can't own ISRAELITES.
SPECIFICALLY, ISRAELITES.
"Take your slaves from the nations around you."
"You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly." [LINK]
I guess some people are more equal than others.
-->
@3RU7AL
God did prohibit slavery, and the bible asserts that it is not possible to own people as property.
Well, you can't own ISRAELITES. SPECIFICALLY, ISRAELITES.
Nope. You just don't know the bible. It was probably not in the atheist website's interest to show you the verses that vindicate the bible.
"Take your slaves from the nations around you."
They also had Jewish slaves. You are either missing or hiding context again.
"You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly." [LINK]
Here is a question for you. We're any of these slaves not voluntary?
I guess some people are more equal than others.
Yes, some will push what they know to be lies in order to castigate the bible. Such people aren't equal at all.
-->
@ethang5
Here is a question for you. We're any of these slaves not voluntary?
Are you kidding me?
I'm going to hazard a guess that the slaves that were literally BORN INTO SLAVERY were "not voluntary".
-->
@ethang5
Nope. You just don't know the bible.
Your logical fallacy is, APPEAL TO IGNORANCE.
-->
@3RU7AL
Here is a question for you. We're any of these slaves not voluntary?
Are you kidding me?
No.
I'm going to hazard a guess that the slaves that were literally BORN INTO SLAVERY were "not voluntary".
You would be wrong. The kind of slavery the Bible is talking about is indentured servitude where a person worked off a debt. It had to be voluntary. Stealing a man and forcing him into slavery was a crime punishable by death. After the debt was paid, the person was free and could leave or stay if he wanted. If the person died before full payment, his heir assumed the debt.
What was owned, sold, or inherited was the debt, not the person. So if the master died before a debt was repaid, his heir could inherit the debt payments.
In those days, there was no social safety net, no pensions, no job market, and no police. People had to attach themselves to a Noble house for protection and for shelter, and for food. So deals were made such that a "slave" would live under the master's roof, eat from his kitchen, and be kept safe by protection, in exchange for some service the slave would provide. It was voluntary. People who could not or would not attach themselves to a master, were left exposed to fend for themselves with no land, no job, and no future. They would quickly get picked off by slavers or bandits.
The "slavery" in the Bible is not like the slavery we know from the US South, where people were owned, and masters suffered no penalty for killing a slave except the loss of property. The bible explicitly forbids ownership of ANY human (slavery) and sets the penalty for slavery as death. But atheist website's never point out those verses.
-->
@ethang5
indentured servitude: correct.
Today, we call it "public service," but it's the same bloody thing. - work to pay a debt.
However, there were also slaves who were so their entire lives, so it was both indentured servitude and slavery in a traditional sense.
But as for the original question, slavery was not "supported" as an imposed service by any biblical reference, but it was acknowledged. There is a big difference
-->
@ethang5
I think that it's fair to suggest that the words "Slavery" and "Voluntary" are not synonymous.
-->
@fauxlaw
As you can see by the post directly below yours fauxlaw, atheists are loath to give up their southern Alabama idea of slavery. To them, it's just a ploy to extracate the bible.
However, there were also slaves who were so their entire lives, so it was both indentured servitude and slavery in a traditional sense.
First, southern US slavery was not "traditional". Very few places had the type of slavery the US South had, unpaid ad owned. While there were real slaves in biblical times, the bible did not condone slavery, and ancient Hebrews did not have a concept of owning another human being as to them, Jehovah Himself personally owned all humans.
My point was not that slavery did not exist, but that the bible does not condone or excuse it. The atheists who make this charge are wholly ignorant of the times AND the culture back then.
-->
@ethang5
That the Bible acknowledged, but did not condone slavery, is my observation, too. However, our Southern Slave States had its identical in Great Britain from Roman times, and from which it required two acts of Parliament to abolish slavery.