The Bible And Slavery

[rousseau]

Sometimes here we stipulate thing for discssion.
But yeah, laughing at them is another way.

I didn't say laughing at them, I said laughing at the argument. Just that there is a 'debate' about the content in the bible is completely ridiculous - to me the only argument that should ever be made about the bible is that it's a man-made document, and therefore none of it's content has any meaning or validity to a 21st century world.

It's not that I don't appreciate that you're trying to undermine the bible, but for me I'd try to do it in a different way. Rather than lend any credence to arguments about the words of the bible, I'd rather just shake someone by the shoulders and say wake the fuck up.

 

[Politesse]

Politesse, when confronted with the bible's condoning slavery versus the argument that humans learned better, replies, "well not completely better" as if that is sufficient to change the subject and pretend that it's okay that the bible condones slavery!

This is nothing but libel. I absolutely do not condone slavery in any form or at any time, and never have. Not in Exodus, not in any book, time or place. In the present, I have fought very hard to end the practice, and find this gotcha game of clobber verses to be a hindrance to the project rather than a benefit. You don't give a flying shit about slaves, you just want to get a cheap shot off at your religious enemies.

As for observing that the human condition is unchanged, that is because these issues are important to me, and the tendency of modern Europeans and Americans to regard slavery as a "solved problem" is similarly an enormous obstacle to ending the practice in truth and in law.

I am only observing that when discussing the printed fact that the bibles condones slavery, you chose to not talk about that, but about some other small tidbit.

This discussion is about the bibe because so many people use the bible for immoral ends - like slavery - and it, the bible, should be condemned for its immorality. The topic is the bible. You left the topic.

I admit that discussing the situation of slaves is off-topic, but I also think it is very important.

 

[Politesse]

Viewed as a societal action, abolition of slavery timeline:

1831 - Bolivia, Brazil
1832 - Greece
1833 - Britain
1835 - Serbia, Denmark
1840 - Venezuela, New Zealand
1841 - Russia, Austria
1848 - France
1851 - Ecuador
1853 - Argentina
1863 - Netherlands
1865 - U.S.
1868 - Cuba

Caveat: In some cases, abolition came with specific exclusions, usually in reference to colonies, and, in a few cases above, the original laws were overturned and then reenacted years later. Still there's a definite historical trend toward abolition of slavery and serfdom (and most especially the maritime slave trade) in the 19th Century. But the Bible stayed the Bible.

Slavery was never universally abolished in the U.S., we are literally still fighting this fight.

Now I'm curious to hear your perspective.

The Constitution forbids chattel slavery, but allows for the enslavement of people who have committed a crime, which has allowed for the continuation of slavery for a large portion of American Blacks on into the present. There's no hope of federal abolition of slavery, as this would require an additional amendment to the Constitution, and in the aggregate Republicans strongly oppose such an amendment. However, there has been more success going state by state and encouraging them to use their own agency as states to forbid the practice within their borders. I've spent quite a lot of my time canvassing on this issue, and it has given me a much more jaded view of the American position than has been implied by this thread. While a strong majority oppose slavery, many are coomfortable with the exception case, and a sizeable minority overtly believe that the South was in the right when they defended even chattel slavery. We had two great successes in the 2020 election, as two states (Utah and Nebraska) joined the growing assembly which explicitly opposes this practice. A great victory, but incomplete. Uncompensated or severely undercompensated prisoner labor still generates $2 billion a year in unearned profit in the United States, and the work prisoners are subjected to is often menial, cruel, or dangerous. You can read more about these issues and our ongoing fight to reverse them here.

Which is why spreading around the idea, in a mostly Christian country, that the Bible allows for or even requires slavery (which it does not) is in my opinion dangerous and irresponsible. Apologetics like those which LionIRC is espousing, which try to make light of ancient slavery or make cases for why it "wasn't so bad because of x" are especially despicable, as people seek out similar exceptions to justify slavery in the present. So it is not just a question of theology or hermeneutics for me; we can disagree about the Bible til the cows come home, and if we're just talking about how many persons God has or the ideal methods of praying, that's fine. Arguing about philosophical matters often has little more significance than arguing about the weather. But this particular disagreement has a bloody history, a dangerous present, and a worrying future if even atheists are taking the pro-slavery side of it. People who don't take this seriously, should.

 

[Lion IRC]

The bible doesn't need slavery apologetics because the bible does NOT condone slavery - it condemns slavery.

 

[Aesthete]

Exodus 21:20-1:
If a man beats his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave then dies, he shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished, for the slave is his money.
This is God talking (see Ex. 20:1.) God's words are -- what, eternal? A model and example for our lives? Of unalterable significance? A message that tells me how I should live, and how I should treat others?
How, then, did western man in the 19th Century develop an insight into the concept quoted from Exodus 21, and decide that it was primitive and morally squalid, something not to be tolerated, something to be abolished?

Yes, the slave is his property - this is a picture of God's redeemed people being His own possession. And it's in the law that the slave must not die, because God will always keep His people, and will never cast us away, no matter what. But God's chastening is described as the rod, so there's another parallel (which thing, in eternity, will be no more). Moreover, Exodus 21:1-6 is a picture of salvation. We, born again believers, are the love-slaves of the Creator of the universe! God created all things for Himself. He created and saved a bride from fallen humanity for Himself to be His everlasting possession and treasure.

 

[ideologyhunter]

...and Trump won the election.

 

[ruby sparks]

Exodus 21:20-1:
If a man beats his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave then dies, he shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished, for the slave is his money.
This is God talking (see Ex. 20:1.) God's words are -- what, eternal? A model and example for our lives? Of unalterable significance? A message that tells me how I should live, and how I should treat others?
How, then, did western man in the 19th Century develop an insight into the concept quoted from Exodus 21, and decide that it was primitive and morally squalid, something not to be tolerated, something to be abolished?

Yes, the slave is his property - this is a picture of God's redeemed people being His own possession. And it's in the law that the slave must not die, because God will always keep His people, and will never cast us away, no matter what. But God's chastening is described as the rod, so there's another parallel (which thing, in eternity, will be no more). Moreover, Exodus 21:1-6 is a picture of salvation. We, born again believers, are the love-slaves of the Creator of the universe! God created all things for Himself. He created and saved a bride from fallen humanity for Himself to be His everlasting possession and treasure.

Apart from talking gibberish, I think you're also completely missing the point.

 

[Aesthete]

The bible doesn't need slavery apologetics because the bible does NOT condone slavery - it condemns slavery.

The Bible doesn't condemn slavery. And why would it, when the teaching of the cross is that we've become dead to sin by the body of Christ (Rom 7:4), that we're the slaves (doulos) of Jesus Christ? Jesus said how can one enter into a strong man's house and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? (Matthew 12:29). Jesus Christ has bound Satan. But who is Satan? By nature, we are all his children and obey his lusts. Jesus told Peter (yet unconverted, not yet received the Spirit - John 7:37-39), "get thee behind me, Satan." The teaching of cross is that we, our old man, is crucified with Christ. That is, we're dead. That is, we're bound to Christ in the same manner that Jesus described in Matthew 12 - the strong man of the house is bound and his goods are plundered. Well, that's us, if we're in Christ, as we're His possession, His slaves.

So, no, the Bible doesn't condemn slavery per se. But we are also said to be no longer slaves but sons (Gal 4:7) - and slavery here is treated negatively because of which master is in focus (sin). Jesus said whoever commits sin is a slave of sin. But if the Son shall set you free, you shall be free indeed. And how so? Because we've become His slaves, His love-slaves, His everlasting possession! (Matthew 13:44-46)

 

[Aesthete]

Exodus 21:20-1:
If a man beats his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave then dies, he shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished, for the slave is his money.
This is God talking (see Ex. 20:1.) God's words are -- what, eternal? A model and example for our lives? Of unalterable significance? A message that tells me how I should live, and how I should treat others?
How, then, did western man in the 19th Century develop an insight into the concept quoted from Exodus 21, and decide that it was primitive and morally squalid, something not to be tolerated, something to be abolished?

Yes, the slave is his property - this is a picture of God's redeemed people being His own possession. And it's in the law that the slave must not die, because God will always keep His people, and will never cast us away, no matter what. But God's chastening is described as the rod, so there's another parallel (which thing, in eternity, will be no more). Moreover, Exodus 21:1-6 is a picture of salvation. We, born again believers, are the love-slaves of the Creator of the universe! God created all things for Himself. He created and saved a bride from fallen humanity for Himself to be His everlasting possession and treasure.

Apart from talking gibberish, I think you're also completely missing the point.

It is you folks who are missing the point. Yes, the worldly institution of slavery is horrible. But so is this present evil world, and we are all by nature slaves of sin and corruption and death. But slavery exists as a concept because it is a picture of salvation. Salvation is of eternal significance, while the cares of this world are fading quickly. Jesus has set His people free from the true slavery, which has as its master corruption and death.

 

[ideologyhunter]

So God is Trump.
"Don't let it dominate you, my children. Don't be afraid of it. Don't let slavery take over your lives."

 

[Aesthete]

"Don't let it dominate you, my children. Don't be afraid of it. Don't let slavery take over your lives."

Nice that you brought up COVID. This is a good example of what I'm talking about. I certainly had a peace of mind about it that I never could have had if I were still and atheist, when it started up earlier this year. I know it's in God's hands. I know I would have been depressed and worried if I were still an atheist. But for me, to live is Christ and to die is gain.

Hebrews 2:14-15: "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage."

The natural man is subject to bondage through the fear of death. And guess what? I no longer am!

 

[Rhea]

Which is why spreading around the idea, in a mostly Christian country, that the Bible allows for or even requires slavery (which it does not) is in my opinion dangerous and irresponsible. [...]. People who don't take this seriously, should.

The people with the bibles ALREADY THINK THIS. My argument is that the bible needs to be trashed because it shows this. We cannot make the bible NOT say this to its adherents, unless we can get them to tear out the pages that say it.

1900 years have gone by and that bible STILL says those things. So, in my opinion, trying to pretend it doesn't say it as a way to get them to stop acting on it is a proven failure. We need to say instead: Bible says this. IT'S WRONG. Throw out the bnible or change it to throw out those sections and EXCISE that cancer, don't put a superman band-aid on top of it.

 

[Rhea]

. But slavery exists as a concept because it is a picture of salvation.

No, it is fucking not. Slavery is HORRIBLE.

You demonstrate why this has to be THROWN OUT of the bible. People like you will gladly embrace slavery because of this morally bankrupt doctrine that you WANT to be a slave if your master is cool enough.

 

[abaddon]

"Don't let it dominate you, my children. Don't be afraid of it. Don't let slavery take over your lives."

Nice that you brought up COVID. This is a good example of what I'm talking about. I certainly had a peace of mind about it that I never could have had if I were still and atheist, when it started up earlier this year. I know it's in God's hands. I know I would have been depressed and worried if I were still an atheist. But for me, to live is Christ and to die is gain.

Hebrews 2:14-15: "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage."

The natural man is subject to bondage through the fear of death. And guess what? I no longer am!

You can have a reasonable amount of peace of mind without having to resort to escapist religious fantasy.

This is the problem with Christianity. It's one of the religions that tell there's an escape from reality. Its mode of self-transcendence doesn't involve dealing with worries mindfully, but by pretending they can be ignored because the fantasy tells there's a better life elsewhere and any problems in this world will be answered in another.

It's a head-in-the-sand approach to the problems in life. But with a price of admission: brown-nosing a demanding master. And that's why the moral bankruptcy often seen among christians happens - they can always just simply cover their eyes and plug their ears and say "not so!" at the problems they would rather not be bothered by. Also why they'll dogmatically insist about what things that are innate to people's very selves are shameful, "sinful". The repression shows sooner or later: children get molested, greed is given a green light by God, the lesser ("living in sin") humans are excluded from mutual regard.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The natural man is subject to bondage through the fear of death. And guess what? I no longer am!

Good for you. Until I matured and figured out how silly those religious teachings were I was afraid at times. But I know they are just silly fables and stories told by superstitious people and believed by superstitious people. But having said that, if you are a better, less selfish human being as a result of your religious beliefs, good for you.

 

[Politesse]

The bible doesn't need slavery apologetics because the bible does NOT condone slavery - it condemns slavery.

On this, we agree.

 

[Politesse]

The people with the bibles ALREADY THINK THIS.

I'm aware. All too aware.

My argument is that the bible needs to be trashed because it shows this. We cannot make the bible NOT say this to its adherents, unless we can get them to tear out the pages that say it.

1900 years have gone by and that bible STILL says those things. So, in my opinion, trying to pretend it doesn't say it as a way to get them to stop acting on it is a proven failure. We need to say instead: Bible says this. IT'S WRONG. Throw out the bnible or change it to throw out those sections and EXCISE that cancer, don't put a superman band-aid on top of it.

You're insane if you think people are going to throw out the Bible because they think it asks them to do soemthing awful. They revel in doing awful things.

On the other hand, abandoning Christ's teachings is something they are less comfortable admitting to. And I have had many conversations with people - yes, even "conservatives" - that ended with them admitting to the evils of practices they would have endorsed at the beginning of the conversation. So what good have you done lately? How many "converts" to your religious beliefs have you notched on your belt? And why should I see that as more important than actually challenging evil social practices?

 

[Rhea]

[ And that's why the moral bankruptcy often seen among christians happens - they can always just simply cover their eyes and plug their ears and say "not so!" at the problems they would rather not be bothered by. Also why they'll dogmatically insist about what things that are innate to people's very selves are shameful, "sinful". The repression shows sooner or later: children get molested, greed is given a green light by God, the lesser ("living in sin") humans are excluded from mutual regard.

Indeed.

We see this in the difference between how a church reacts to sexual crimes, and how, for instance, a teacher's union does.

In the church the sexual crimes (against both boys and girls, btw) are detected and the leadership does everything they can to HIDE it, including putting more victims at risk. Because they believe that the presence of criminality in the clergy is an indictment of the claimed promise that Christianity makes you a better human, and they cannot afford to let it be known that is false. So they hide, cover up, obfuscate.... are complicit.

In a Teacher's union, if sexual crimes are detected, the teacher is turned over to the police, arrested, prosecuted and the school, the teacher's union and the public all say, "people are people, we value a system that stops that behavior whenever we find it and protects the victims.

The difference is a power grabbing stance versus a moral stance.

What do we see here? The doctrine of "salvation" being responsible for more victims because it would be "insane" for Christians to ever think their religion is the problem, not the answer.

 

[southernhybrid]

Exodus 21:20-1:
If a man beats his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave then dies, he shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished, for the slave is his money.
This is God talking (see Ex. 20:1.) God's words are -- what, eternal? A model and example for our lives? Of unalterable significance? A message that tells me how I should live, and how I should treat others?
How, then, did western man in the 19th Century develop an insight into the concept quoted from Exodus 21, and decide that it was primitive and morally squalid, something not to be tolerated, something to be abolished?

Yes, the slave is his property - this is a picture of God's redeemed people being His own possession. And it's in the law that the slave must not die, because God will always keep His people, and will never cast us away, no matter what. But God's chastening is described as the rod, so there's another parallel (which thing, in eternity, will be no more). Moreover, Exodus 21:1-6 is a picture of salvation. We, born again believers, are the love-slaves of the Creator of the universe! God created all things for Himself. He created and saved a bride from fallen humanity for Himself to be His everlasting possession and treasure.

Wow! That's a really sick, primitive philosophy, even sicker than the one I was taught by my evangelical Christian parents. One sure has to twist and distort the words in your holy book to come up with that.

And, here's the thing, regardless of whether the Bible supports slavery or not, isn't as important as the well known fact, that Christians used that book to justify slavery in the US during the founding of the US, and well into the late 1800s. And, I'm talking about a very cruel type of slavery. Slavery is always wrong, but if I were a slave, I'd rather have a master that fed me, clothed me and didn't beat me. Still, I would prefer my freedom. Most of the people who were brought here and were forced into slavery weren't treated humanely. It was mostly Christians who kept slaves and it was Christians who used the Bible to justify the practice.If the Bible condemned slavery, it should have made that clear. Of course, there were also non Christians that kept slaves. I'm not excusing them, but that's not the subject that's being discussed.

But the slave holding Christians absolutely used parts of the OT and the NT to justify slavery. Just look it up. The Bible is a book of very confusing myths. It can be interpreted in many different ways, depending on the motivation of those who interpret it. Imo, the worst interpretations are those that try and make the case that only believers in Jesus as savior are going to be rewarded with some pie in the sky afterlife while the rest of us will suffer eternal suffering and damnation. How anyone in this century can still believe that nonsense is beyond me. But, if there was a god, it wouldn't be so self centered as the Christian god. IF there was a god, that entity wouldn't be so vengeful as to only care about being worshipped and praised. That's just sick! Sadly, you obviously worship a very narcissistic god. If you need mythology in your life, fine. Please find one that is more positive and helps unite people with love and good works, instead of demonizing those who are outside of your cult.

I left Christianity while attending a very conservative Christian college. It opened my eyes to the fact that the Christians weren't any better than the non Christians and they were often worse, more judgmental and sometimes hateful and racist. It opened my eyes as to how insane the concept of salvation via Jesus was and the truth has set me free. So, I did learn something important during that one semester that I attended such an awful place.

 

[Lion IRC]

The bible doesn't need slavery apologetics because the bible does NOT condone slavery - it condemns slavery.

The Bible doesn't condemn slavery. And why would it, when the teaching of the cross is that we've become dead to sin by the body of Christ (Rom 7:4), that we're the slaves (doulos) of Jesus Christ? Jesus said how can one enter into a strong man's house and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? (Matthew 12:29). Jesus Christ has bound Satan. But who is Satan? By nature, we are all his children and obey his lusts. Jesus told Peter (yet unconverted, not yet received the Spirit - John 7:37-39), "get thee behind me, Satan." The teaching of cross is that we, our old man, is crucified with Christ. That is, we're dead. That is, we're bound to Christ in the same manner that Jesus described in Matthew 12 - the strong man of the house is bound and his goods are plundered. Well, that's us, if we're in Christ, as we're His possession, His slaves.

So, no, the Bible doesn't condemn slavery per se. But we are also said to be no longer slaves but sons (Gal 4:7) - and slavery here is treated negatively because of which master is in focus (sin). Jesus said whoever commits sin is a slave of sin. But if the Son shall set you free, you shall be free indeed. And how so? Because we've become His slaves, His love-slaves, His everlasting possession! (Matthew 13:44-46)

Galatians and Romans analogous use of the words slave/slavery is powerful imagery but the ambiguity isn't helpful in a thread like this.

Slave to sin. Slave cylinder. Slaving over a hot stove. Slave to love....

https://www.researchgate.net/public..._Master-Slave_Analogy_in_Technical_Literature