The Bible And Slavery

[Lion IRC]

Here. If you want to argue from dictionary meanings.

Endorse verb (used with object), en·dorsed, en·dors·ing. - To approve, support, or sustain:

Synonyms.
advocate
back
campaign for
defend
encourage
favor
further
justify
press for
promote
propose
push
recommend
support
tout
uphold
urge
advance
advise
bless
bolster
boost
champion
countenance
vindicate
argue for
be in corner
brace up
build up
get on bandwagon
give a leg up
go for
go to bat for
go with
ride shotgun for
root for
run interference for
speak for

 

[DBT]

Here. If you want to argue from dictionary meanings.

Endorse verb (used with object), en·dorsed, en·dors·ing. - To approve, support, or sustain:

Synonyms.
advocate
back
campaign for
defend
encourage
favor
further
justify
press for
promote
propose
push
recommend
support
tout
uphold
urge
advance
advise
bless
bolster
boost
champion
countenance
vindicate
argue for
be in corner
brace up
build up
get on bandwagon
give a leg up
go for
go to bat for
go with
ride shotgun for
root for
run interference for
speak for

Look up "tacit endorcement."

 

[atrib]

Here. If you want to argue from dictionary meanings.

Endorse verb (used with object), en·dorsed, en·dors·ing. - To approve, support, or sustain:

Synonyms.
advocate
back
campaign for
defend
encourage
favor
further
justify
press for
promote
propose
push
recommend
support
tout
uphold
urge
advance
advise
bless
bolster
boost
champion
countenance
vindicate
argue for
be in corner
brace up
build up
get on bandwagon
give a leg up
go for
go to bat for
go with
ride shotgun for
root for
run interference for
speak for

Providing instructions to slave-owners on how to beat their slaves, and dispositions regarding the process by which descendants of slaves become the property of the owner of the parent slaves is an explicit endorsement of slavery. It approves of, actively supports and helps sustain the practice of slavery.

 

[Bomb#20]

The dictionary/semantic meaning of a word is not a biblical endorsement.
You're going have to try harder than that to convince me God approves of slavery.
...or slave traders and liars and perjurers

https://www.biblestudytools.com/1-timothy/1-10.html

Lion, none of us freethinkers are trying to convince you God approves of slavery. None of us think God approves of slavery. We are trying to convince you the Bible is not the Word of God. It's just a collection of ancient literature from many different times by many different fallible human authors, expressing those fallible human authors' often stupid or wicked opinions; and hundreds of years after the various pieces were written, a bunch of fallible churchmen who knew next to nothing about those authors held a vote, and then those fallible churchmen ordered a lot of copies of whichever books a majority of them voted for. Nothing in that process provides the slightest particle of evidence, one way or the other, as to what God approves of.

(In case you care enough about God's actual thoughts to try to learn what He says for Himself, as opposed to putting your effort into learning what other humans say He says, Thomas Paine wrote a handy guidebook that contains some reasonable suggestions for how you might go about investigating the matter; you can read it here.)

 

[ideologyhunter]

Another reason to think God approved of chattel slavery: because the people of ancient Palestine thought so. Slavery was discussed in the Deuteronomic Code, and it was referenced 600 years later in the gospels, again, without any voices calling for abolition. Jesus has slaves in some of his parables. Who in the Bible is talking about those who free their slaves to get righteous in God's eyes? No one.

 

[Politesse]

Jesus has slaves in some of his parables.

Ah, referencing the setup for the parables and ignoring the conclusions. Have you ever considered a career as a Southern Baptist Minister?

 

[ideologyhunter]

Back at ya. Name a parable that messages that slavery is an abomination.

 

[Politesse]

Back at ya. Name a parable that messages that slavery is an abomination.

There was once a drugged-out homeless man, lying terribly injured and vocally struggling to breathe on the side of the road on 34th St in DC. His shivering, miserable body was quite hard to miss beside the pleasant, tree-lined avenue and the faux-ancient brick townhouses. Three people passed by that morning: a Georgetown professor of law, an ordained minister of the UU, and a Republican campaign manager. The law professor, feeling worried about the legal consequences of intervening, passed by on the other side of the road. The minister, worried that the victim might have COVID and infect her such that she could no longer do her other very important work for her community, also passed by, though she crossed herself and prayed for the poor injured soul before doing so.

The campaign manager saw the victim, and his heart was moved with compassion. He drove him to an overnight clinic and paid for treatment, and then over to a Value Inn where he bought him a room to rest for the night and a phone card so he could call his family when he woke up and sobered up.

Now, they all lived in the same neighborhood. But who, would you say, was truly a good neighbor to the injured man? The professor, the pastor, or the prick?

Or, while we're at it, the person who reads this story and concludes "The moral is that the Bible says there should always be homeless druggies, since they are mentioned in the story."

 

[ideologyhunter]

You missed my point entirely, then. The point is that no one in the entire Bible condemns slavery and tells the slave owners to set the slaves free. And Jesus is in that list of Bible figures who doesn't condemn it. Slaves figure in his parables, but there is no recorded teaching from him on slavery as a corrupting evil. If he differed with the Deuteronomic Code on slavery, he didn't, by the record, express that. If he did, suppose you quote him.

 

[Politesse]

You missed my point entirely, then. The point is that no one in the entire Bible condemns slavery and tells the slave owners to set the slaves free. And Jesus is in that list of Bible figures who doesn't condemn it. Slaves figure in his parables, but there is no recorded teaching from him on slavery as a corrupting evil. If he differed with the Deuteronomic Code on slavery, he didn't, by the record, express that. If he did, suppose you quote him.

Slavery is very plainly and obviously inconsistent with Jesus' teachings. You didn't answer my question. Who, in the story, was a good neighbor to the homeless man? Remember, for your point quoted above to make any sense at all, you must go with the law professor, since the law professor correctly followed the written requirements of the law very precisely and that is what you are saying should be the measure of good conduct. So do you think that was Jesus' point? That we should all be like the law professor, and allow the suffering of others to continue as long as an authorative-sounding book tells us it's okay to do so? Do you really think that?

 

[DBT]

There are distinctions related to one's station in life to consider, the rulers of the world are there by the 'will of God,' as are soldiers, merchants, craftspeople, blacksmiths, etc, and slaves - slaves obey your master being the instruction. To love one's neighbor does not remove them from their station in life, be it king or slave.

 

[skepticalbip]

You missed my point entirely, then. The point is that no one in the entire Bible condemns slavery and tells the slave owners to set the slaves free. And Jesus is in that list of Bible figures who doesn't condemn it. Slaves figure in his parables, but there is no recorded teaching from him on slavery as a corrupting evil. If he differed with the Deuteronomic Code on slavery, he didn't, by the record, express that. If he did, suppose you quote him.

I don't think Politesse missed your point at all. It can't be refuted... the Bible does not condemn slavery thus the red herring of asking who was a good neighbor to the poor old drunk.

OTOH, the Bible does take a strong stand in condemning witches. They are to be stoned to death. It also takes a strong stand in condemning anyone who does not honor their parents. Making graven images is condemned. There is much, much more that is explicitly condemned but not slavery.

 

[Politesse]

There are distinctions related to one's station in life to consider, the rulers of the world are there by the 'will of God,' as are soldiers, merchants, craftspeople, blacksmiths, etc, and slaves - slaves obey your master being the instruction. To love one's neighbor does not remove them from their station in life, be it king or slave.

No, it doesn't relieve you from your station in life. But it should absolutely prevent you from enslaving another human being, or by failure to act, allow another to be enslaved.

 

[Politesse]

You missed my point entirely, then. The point is that no one in the entire Bible condemns slavery and tells the slave owners to set the slaves free. And Jesus is in that list of Bible figures who doesn't condemn it. Slaves figure in his parables, but there is no recorded teaching from him on slavery as a corrupting evil. If he differed with the Deuteronomic Code on slavery, he didn't, by the record, express that. If he did, suppose you quote him.

I don't think Politesse missed your point at all. It can't be refuted... the Bible does not condemn slavery thus the red herring of asking who was a good neighbor to the poor old drunk.

OTOH, the Bible does take a strong stand in condemning witches. They are to be stoned to death. It also takes a strong stand in condemning anyone who does not honor their parents. Making graven images is condemned. There is much, much more that is explicitly condemned but not slavery.

I see you cannot answer the question either. Try! Who was a good neighbor? The one who caused sufferering (with a Holy Book to back them up, remember, the letter of the Law clearly in their court), or the one who relieved suffering, despite having no obligation to do so? It's not a "red herring", it's as much a Biblical story as any of the others that have been cited in this thread, and Jesus' intended moral is crystal clear. Your verses might "allow" for slavery. The ones I cited make intentionally participating in slavery utterly impossible.

 

[abaddon]

Who was a good neighbor?

The one who, being the son of a god, was the star of a moralizing tale intended to change the world and so explicitly stated why homelessness is wrong and didn't skip that far more important point by blabbering a far lesser point about being nice.

 

[Politesse]

Who was a good neighbor?

The one who, being the son of a god, was the star of a moralizing tale intended to change the world and so explicitly stated why homelessness is wrong and didn't skip that far more important point by blabbering a far lesser point about being nice.

I strongly suspect that Jesus would disagree that love between human beings is a "far lesser point" than defining policy. I know I do. Without compassion for others, outlawing homelessness doesn't mean anything. But if everyone loved on another, well and truly, then involuntary homelessness would be impossible no matter what the law required or didn't.

 

[skepticalbip]

You missed my point entirely, then. The point is that no one in the entire Bible condemns slavery and tells the slave owners to set the slaves free. And Jesus is in that list of Bible figures who doesn't condemn it. Slaves figure in his parables, but there is no recorded teaching from him on slavery as a corrupting evil. If he differed with the Deuteronomic Code on slavery, he didn't, by the record, express that. If he did, suppose you quote him.

I don't think Politesse missed your point at all. It can't be refuted... the Bible does not condemn slavery thus the red herring of asking who was a good neighbor to the poor old drunk.

OTOH, the Bible does take a strong stand in condemning witches. They are to be stoned to death. It also takes a strong stand in condemning anyone who does not honor their parents. Making graven images is condemned. There is much, much more that is explicitly condemned but not slavery.

I see you cannot answer the question either. Try! Who was a good neighbor? The one who caused sufferering (with a Holy Book to back them up, remember, the letter of the Law clearly in their court), or the one who relieved suffering, despite having no obligation to do so? It's not a "red herring", it's as much a Biblical story as any of the others that have been cited in this thread, and Jesus' intended moral is crystal clear. Your verses might "allow" for slavery. The ones I cited make intentionally participating in slavery utterly impossible.

Cute.... I don't care to chase your red herring. The subject of this thread is what the Bible says about slavery.

If you really want to discuss your red herring , with whoever may be interested, then you should start another thread.

 

[Politesse]

I see you cannot answer the question either. Try! Who was a good neighbor? The one who caused sufferering (with a Holy Book to back them up, remember, the letter of the Law clearly in their court), or the one who relieved suffering, despite having no obligation to do so? It's not a "red herring", it's as much a Biblical story as any of the others that have been cited in this thread, and Jesus' intended moral is crystal clear. Your verses might "allow" for slavery. The ones I cited make intentionally participating in slavery utterly impossible.

Cute.... I don't care to chase your red herring. The subject of this thread is what the Bible says about slavery.

If you really want to discuss your red herring , with whoever may be interested, then you should start another thread.

I've made a very consistent argument about why "the Bible", though contradictory as you would expect an ancient anthology with many authors to be, does not morally or logically allow for slavery. You aren't refusing to answer my question because it is irrelevant. You are refusing to answer my question because you know any answer other than the obvious would be absurd, and that torturing another human for your personal profit is not something that a disciple of Christ could possibly do, regardless of what clever argument a legal expert might build out of other Torahic text fragments.

So, be brave. Take a stance. Who was the good neighbor? The one who relieved suffering, or the ones whose inaction (though legally justifiable) worsened it?

 

[DBT]

There are distinctions related to one's station in life to consider, the rulers of the world are there by the 'will of God,' as are soldiers, merchants, craftspeople, blacksmiths, etc, and slaves - slaves obey your master being the instruction. To love one's neighbor does not remove them from their station in life, be it king or slave.

No, it doesn't relieve you from your station in life. But it should absolutely prevent you from enslaving another human being, or by failure to act, allow another to be enslaved.

If station in life is seen as the will of God, rather than abolish what God has put into place, the imperative may to treat slaves kindly.

A matter of interpretation where undeniable condemnation is not given.

 

[Politesse]

If station in life is seen as the will of God, rather than abolish what God has put into place, the imperative may to treat slaves kindly.

I agree. So what does it mean to treat a person with kindness? Can you answer the question of who was a good neighbor to the injured man? Or, to put it another way, can you tell the difference between "treating someone kindly" but still enslaving them, as opposed to treating them with kindness and also liberating from the greatest burden and pain of their life?

A matter of interpretation where undeniable condemnation is not given.

No, it isn't. However, to follow Christ's teachings and also keep a slave would be impossible. So, "The Bible" does not endorse slavery. It is a matter of interpretation, but your interpretation is logically indefensible and morally repugnant, so why should I give it the time of day?