The Bible And Slavery

[J842P]

One sure has to twist and distort the words in your holy book to come up with that.

Not really, it is a pretty reasonable interpretation of Christianity.

 

[DBT]

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

Equivocation. Being owned by someone as a slave is not the same as being bound to someone through love.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Equivocation. Being owned by someone as a slave is not the same as being bound to someone through love.

No, no, it's the same thing. If you love, truly love someone, you can prove it. The bible says they get to lean you against the door post and pound an awl thru your ear, to show that they gave you the chance to run, but you just loved them so much you want to be theirs forever, marked for life. And they get to keep your wife and kids, too, just likd biblical slavery.

 

[skepticalbip]

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

Equivocation. Being owned by someone as a slave is not the same as being bound to someone through love.

There is also a big difference between chattel slavery and indentured servitude. I would think that societies that have chattel slavery also have indentured servitude and people bound by love. The writings from the early Hebrews certainly indicate that they did. I gotta wonder if Lion really does not think the early Hebrews had slavery despite the clear references and detailed laws about it in the Bible or if he is yet again being disingenuous.

 

[Lion IRC]

Equivocation. Being owned by someone as a slave is not the same as being bound to someone through love.

Of course. It certainly is equivocation because its a metaphor - about obedience. And there are many forms of 'slavery', not all of which are identically immoral.

As I said earlier, much of what we call slavery in the bible is/was the lesser of two evils. A pragmatic necessity more preferable than the voluntary alternative.

Consider the similar example of government sponsored 'safe' injecting rooms for heroin addicts. The government provides facilities where people can use a banned, harmful substance - heroin. It can be argued that this proves that the government is "condones" heroin use. But that's as inaccurate as saying the bible condones slavery.

 

[DBT]

Equivocation. Being owned by someone as a slave is not the same as being bound to someone through love.

Of course. It certainly is equivocation because its a metaphor - about obedience. And there are many forms of 'slavery', not all of which are identically immoral.

As metaphor there was an apparent attempt at justifying the bible's lack of condemnation of slavery by associating several different concepts, ambiguity, through the use of semantics; ''Slave to sin. Slave cylinder. Slaving over a hot stove. Slave to love....''

 

[Politesse]

As I said earlier, much of what we call slavery in the bible is/was the lesser of two evils. A pragmatic necessity more preferable than the voluntary alternative.

A child born into slavery has no "voluntary alternative". That doesn't make abusing them for your own gain the right thing to do.

 

[skepticalbip]

As I said earlier, much of what we call slavery in the bible is/was the lesser of two evils. A pragmatic necessity more preferable than the voluntary alternative.

That is some twisted "reasoning". Personally I don't think it is preferable for the citizens of a city that loses during a war to be taken as chattel slaves rather than leaving them alone to rebuild their society and worship their 'wrong god'. The Bible does, at least, not permit the taking of fellow Hebrews as chattel slaves.

 

[Rhea]

The Bible does, at least, not permit the taking of fellow Hebrews as chattel slaves.

But - hw can that be? Slavery is “not that bad”!!! Surely this is not hypocrisy we are seeing from the authors of the bible! Say it ain’t so!

 

[Aesthete]

Equivocation. Being owned by someone as a slave is not the same as being bound to someone through love.

Of course. It certainly is equivocation because its a metaphor - about obedience. And there are many forms of 'slavery', not all of which are identically immoral.

As I said earlier, much of what we call slavery in the bible is/was the lesser of two evils. A pragmatic necessity more preferable than the voluntary alternative.

Consider the similar example of government sponsored 'safe' injecting rooms for heroin addicts. The government provides facilities where people can use a banned, harmful substance - heroin. It can be argued that this proves that the government is "condones" heroin use. But that's as inaccurate as saying the bible condones slavery.

As the New Testament uses it, it's not a metaphor about obedience. Why? Because only Jesus Christ was perfectly obedient to the Father and sinless. For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers. We are not the doers. But in Him - that is, in Christ - we are made perfect. Jesus Christ said be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. That is, to be in Him, we are perfect. We are overcomers if we are in Him, and this is not of our own works.

This is why I am so insistent that the word slave truly means slave. It does not mean that we're perfectly obedient, but that we are crucified - that is dead - with Christ. It's about ownership, not obedience. This is the language Paul used - that we are crucified with Christ. That we are dead and our life is hid with Christ in God (Col 3:3). And likewise Paul said, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise. Sealed as in shut up, as God shut Noah in the ark (Gen 7:16). This is essential as far as salvation is concerned, because as Jesus said, we must take up our cross and follow Him daily. The cross means death, and we do this by dying to self, which is to be alive to God and righteousness. This necessarily means that we can neither sin our way out of salvation nor choose to give up salvation. If we could do either, then we're not dead to sin. But we are dead to sin if we're in Christ, as we're not our own but bought with a price (1 Cor 6:15-20).

 

[ideologyhunter]

As the New Testament uses it, it's not a metaphor about obedience. Why? Because only Jesus Christ was perfectly obedient to the Father and sinless.

But we are dead to sin if we're in Christ, as we're not our own but bought with a price (1 Cor 6:15-20).

Jesus was obedient to himself? Wasn't he the incarnation of God?
And I get it, no matter what the subject, ignore the controversy that's been raised and save some souls.

 

[Jarhyn]

As the New Testament uses it, it's not a metaphor about obedience. Why? Because only Jesus Christ was perfectly obedient to the Father and sinless.

But we are dead to sin if we're in Christ, as we're not our own but bought with a price (1 Cor 6:15-20).

Jesus was obedient to himself? Wasn't he the incarnation of God?
And I get it, no matter what the subject, ignore the controversy that's been raised and save some souls.

More, I think according to some wise analysis I saw not too long ago: ignore the controversy, spam bible quotes, alienate, argue ineffectively, and get rebuffed and ridiculed into running back to the church for safe spaces and hug boxe; repeat this cycle until properly on the church's side of a sunk cost fallacy.

 

[DBT]

Equivocation. Being owned by someone as a slave is not the same as being bound to someone through love.

Of course. It certainly is equivocation because its a metaphor - about obedience. And there are many forms of 'slavery', not all of which are identically immoral.

As I said earlier, much of what we call slavery in the bible is/was the lesser of two evils. A pragmatic necessity more preferable than the voluntary alternative.

Consider the similar example of government sponsored 'safe' injecting rooms for heroin addicts. The government provides facilities where people can use a banned, harmful substance - heroin. It can be argued that this proves that the government is "condones" heroin use. But that's as inaccurate as saying the bible condones slavery.

As the New Testament uses it, it's not a metaphor about obedience. Why? Because only Jesus Christ was perfectly obedient to the Father and sinless. For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers. We are not the doers. But in Him - that is, in Christ - we are made perfect. Jesus Christ said be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. That is, to be in Him, we are perfect. We are overcomers if we are in Him, and this is not of our own works.

This is why I am so insistent that the word slave truly means slave. It does not mean that we're perfectly obedient, but that we are crucified - that is dead - with Christ. It's about ownership, not obedience. This is the language Paul used - that we are crucified with Christ. That we are dead and our life is hid with Christ in God (Col 3:3). And likewise Paul said, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise. Sealed as in shut up, as God shut Noah in the ark (Gen 7:16). This is essential as far as salvation is concerned, because as Jesus said, we must take up our cross and follow Him daily. The cross means death, and we do this by dying to self, which is to be alive to God and righteousness. This necessarily means that we can neither sin our way out of salvation nor choose to give up salvation. If we could do either, then we're not dead to sin. But we are dead to sin if we're in Christ, as we're not our own but bought with a price (1 Cor 6:15-20).

There is forced obedience/ obey or face the consequences.

Then willing compliance/acting for the greater good, or one may feel a willingness to please someone important in your life.

The former being related to slavery and fear.

In the case of the bible, believe in and love the Lord your God or suffer the consequences; hell and damnation.

 

[Aesthete]

There is forced obedience/ obey or face the consequences.

Then willing compliance/acting for the greater good, or one may feel a willingness to please someone important in your life.

The former being related to slavery and fear.

Yes, that is correct! All men are subject to God's judgment, which is "obey or face the consequences." But all are sinners by nature. You don't get credit for trying to obey the law of God; only the doers of the law are just before God. Therefore, the natural man is a slave of sin and death and fear. But as Jesus said, "[...] Whosoever committeth sin is the servant [doulos - slave] of sin. And the servant [doulos - slave] abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever. If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed." (John 8:34-36)

In the case of the bible, believe in and love the Lord your God or suffer the consequences; hell and damnation.

God has a purpose for every human soul, either one of honor or dishonor. The Scripture says God is love, and that is why He created and saved His people. Our purpose is to love and worship Him forever, and to be eternal objects of His love. But those who refuse Him and don't repent will indeed suffer the consequences.

 

[Politesse]

There is forced obedience/ obey or face the consequences.

Then willing compliance/acting for the greater good, or one may feel a willingness to please someone important in your life.

The former being related to slavery and fear.

Yes, that is correct! All men are subject to God's judgment, which is "obey or face the consequences." But all are sinners by nature. You don't get credit for trying to obey the law of God; only the doers of the law are just before God. Therefore, the natural man is a slave of sin and death and fear. But as Jesus said, "[...] Whosoever committeth sin is the servant [doulos - slave] of sin. And the servant [doulos - slave] abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever. If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed." (John 8:34-36)

In the case of the bible, believe in and love the Lord your God or suffer the consequences; hell and damnation.

God has a purpose for every human soul, either one of honor or dishonor. The Scripture says God is love, and that is why He created and saved His people. Our purpose is to love and worship Him forever, and to be eternal objects of His love. But those who refuse Him and don't repent will indeed suffer the consequences.

Why is God such a weak sovereign that he is incapable of achieving his own ends? You say it is God's province to prescribe "honor and dishonor" to each soul, but you also say that we can "refuse" the role he has prescribed for us. Well, if those are the terms, I certainly do refuse. If we even have that option, his power is as limited as any other king or slaver in history. They can shout, they can bluster, they can bully, they can kill your family, take your job, send plagues after your cattle or whatever else their twisted imaginations can conjure... but they cannot truly own another person, if we own our own choices.

 

[atrib]

This is amazing. It's morally bankrupt. But amazing.

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!

Lion, when confronted with the bible condoning slavery, says, "yeah but some of them liked it," as if that is sufficient to change the subject and pretend that it's okay that the bible condones slavery!


Problem: The bible condones slavery. It is morally bankrupt.
Problem: you two (and most christians) are okay with that.
Problem: Christians try to force this morally bankrupt doctrine on those of us who can see that it is morally bankrupt.


Sure, parts of it are not morally bankrupt. But here's the thing, you can get all of those parts without needing the bible! which means you can completely and utterly condemn slavery without little hedgey acceptance statements, and still love your neighbor.


Christianity offers nothing that other moral systems don't offer better.

Problem that is IRRECONCILABLE to moral people: The bible condones slavery. It is morally bankrupt.

When you see people telling us that Biblical slavery was "voluntary", and provided some form of social security for poor people, you begin to understand how religious dogma corrupts the human mind. And its not just slavery. We have heard similar arguments from the same poster in trying to defend the idea that forcing women to marry their rapists was a form of social security, and that God killing everyone on the planet because some people were killing other people is just and commendable. In our real lives, most of us understand that slavery, genocide and rape are not positive things, and that they are inconsistent with the ideas that most western countries are grounded on. But when it comes to the Bible, God gets a pass, because the brainwashed masses are unable to wrap their minds around the idea that their god is anything but just and loving.

Religion corrupts the human mind, and turns otherwise normal people into vectors for spreading the disease. We see the same mental degeneration in President Trump, only in Trump's case it is likely linked to a physiological condition that prevents him from doing simple things like form complete and coherent sentences. With believers, the brain damage is self induced.

 

[Aesthete]

Why is God such a weak sovereign that he is incapable of achieving his own ends? You say it is God's province to prescribe "honor and dishonor" to each soul, but you also say that we can "refuse" the role he has prescribed for us.

No, I said "refuse Him," not refuse the role He has prescribed for us. The Bible says He has mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardens. So those who refuse Him and never repent would fall in the latter category.

Well, if those are the terms, I certainly do refuse. If we even have that option, his power is as limited as any other king or slaver in history. They can shout, they can bluster, they can bully, they can kill your family, take your job, send plagues after your cattle or whatever else their twisted imaginations can conjure... but they cannot truly own another person, if we own our own choices.

The Bible makes it clear that no one whom He has chosen will refuse Him. Jesus said, "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day." (John 6:44)

 

[Politesse]

Why is God such a weak sovereign that he is incapable of achieving his own ends? You say it is God's province to prescribe "honor and dishonor" to each soul, but you also say that we can "refuse" the role he has prescribed for us.

No, I said "refuse Him," not refuse the role He has prescribed for us. The Bible says He has mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardens. So those who refuse Him and never repent would fall in the latter category.

Well, if those are the terms, I certainly do refuse. If we even have that option, his power is as limited as any other king or slaver in history. They can shout, they can bluster, they can bully, they can kill your family, take your job, send plagues after your cattle or whatever else their twisted imaginations can conjure... but they cannot truly own another person, if we own our own choices.

The Bible makes it clear that no one whom He has chosen will refuse Him. Jesus said, "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day." (John 6:44)

So what are you doing here? You're stumping around for slavery, copy-pasting some incoherent nonsense your pastor told you and annoying people, but you're not accomplishing anything. You cannot accomplish anything. By your logic, there's nothing for a person to do in this life. God will save whom he will save, or he won't. And by your testimony, he desires that most of us should not be saved, but rather to die in eternal agony.

I'm glad your version of God does not choose me, I'd worry about the company I was attracting frankly. I do not love torturers, slavers, or sadists, nor desire that they should love me.

A wise man once advised me to judge a person by the fruits of their labor, not by how smoothly they can talk. What fruit are you growing?

 

[atrib]

Work or starve to death hardly represents a reasonable set of options. Unless you have a death wish, there is no choice: you work.

Starving to death is not a reasonable option. Choosing to work is not the same as choosing slavery. Starve or choose slavery are not reasonable options.

If someone put a gun to your head and demanded money, your 'choice' being part with your money or die, would you choose death?

If the options were; choose slavery or choose to work for a wage, how many would choose slavery instead of a job?

If we want to get literal about the bible we have to account for a large degree of cultural relativism - the 1st century was a different time. At that time, for some people, slavery was a means of survival. And at that time, this was a completely reasonable condition for many people - slaves and slave owners. It wasn't necessarily agreeable for all parties, but would have been largely normalized to those involved.

You can't really judge reality at that time from a 21st century standard - it was a wholly different world and culture, with different norms. So the bible as written at that time reflected reality as lived during that period.

Now, I'm not interested in whether the bible condemns slavery, because like most of us on this forum I realize that it was a human made document from a long time ago. But unlike others here I find talking about the bible extremely boring. But from a cultural perspective what it wrote about slavery was likely just indicative of it's time.

To put it in another way, people in the year 4000 AD might have some strong opinions about our current, global economy, but to many of us it's just business as usual.

I understand that human culture was different 2,000 years ago. But God is supposed to know better. You know, being all-powerful and all-knowing and all-loving. That is the point you ignore. God doesn't have to endorse slavery.

The context of this discussion is about people in the modern world who believe that slavery is a good idea and a positive force, because the Bible endorses it. There are people in this thread who are saying that today.

 

[DBT]

God has a purpose for every human soul, either one of honor or dishonor. The Scripture says God is love, and that is why He created and saved His people. Our purpose is to love and worship Him forever, and to be eternal objects of His love. But those who refuse Him and don't repent will indeed suffer the consequences.

The faith option appears to be 'believe or face the consequences' - damnation, hell or annihilation (depending on your interpretation). Which is hardly a manifestation of Love. But , as you point out, if God's purpose for you is dishonor or damnation, you have no options or choice in the matter, you are doomed.