The Christian Bible condones slavery explicitly in numerous passages. One of those reference often by slave owners in the Antebellum South comes from the story of Noah.
Genesis 9:24-27
9:24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.
9:25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
9:26 And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
9:27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
The book of Joshua also demonstrates the Christian god’s support of slavery:
9:27 And Joshua made them that day hewers of wood and drawers of water for the congregation, and for the altar of the LORD, even unto this day, in the place which he should choose.
In fact, there are numerous biblical instructions on how to acquire slaves, making it clear that buying people for money is perfectly acceptable.
Exodus 21:2-7
21:2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.
21:3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.
21:4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself.
21:5 And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:
21:6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.
21:7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.
Leviticus 22:10-11
22:10 There shall no stranger eat of the holy thing: a sojourner of the priest, or an hired servant, shall not eat of the holy thing.
22:11 But if the priest buy any soul with his money, he shall eat of it, and he that is born in his house: they shall eat of his meat.
Or slaves can be taken in war.
Deuteronomy 20:10-14
20:10 When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it.
20:11 And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee.
20:12 And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it:
20:13 And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:
20:14 But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.
Leviticus goes on to make it clear that slaves are inheritable possessions.
25:44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
25:45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
25:46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigor.
There are also many biblical instructions on how to treat slaves. Genesis 16:6-9 says that angels will force slaves to return to their owners.
16:6 But Abram said unto Sarai, Behold, thy maid is in thine hand; do to her as it pleaseth thee. And when Sarai dealt hardly with her, she fled from her face.
16:7 And the angel of the LORD found her by a fountain of water in the wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur.
16:8 And he said, Hagar, Sarai’s maid, whence camest thou? and whither wilt thou go? And she said, I flee from the face of my mistress Sarai.
16:9 And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands.
Beating slaves as long as they don’t die immediately is perfectly fine.
Exodus 21:20-21
21:20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
21:21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
Leviticus shows that slaves are property, not covered by the laws protecting other people.
19:20 And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free.
The New Testament doesn’t fare any better. Slavery is explicitly condoned in many places.
Luke 12:46-47
12:46 The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.
12:47 And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
Luke 17:7-9
17:7 But which of you, having a servant plowing or feeding cattle, will say unto him by and by, when he is come from the field, Go and sit down to meat?
17:8 And will not rather say unto him, Make ready wherewith I may sup, and gird thyself, and serve me, till I have eaten and drunken; and afterward thou shalt eat and drink?
17:9 Doth he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I trow not.
1 Corinthians 7:21-22
7:21 Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather.
7:22 For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord’s freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ’s servant.
Ephesians 6:5 Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God.
Colossians 3:22 Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ.
1 Timothy 6:1 Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.
Titus 2:9-10
2:9 Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again;
2:10 Not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things.
1 Peter 2:18 Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.
Nowhere in the Christian Bible is slavery explicitly condemned nor are any of the verses that explicitly support the practice repudiated. Of course, numerous verses are interpreted to be anti-slavery. The fact that both slavery proponents and abolitionists were able to quote scripture in support of their views demonstrates clearly that the bible is, at best, ambiguous. Surely a book intended to provide moral guidance could have found room in the Ten Commandments for “Thou shalt not own slaves.”
The rational conclusion is that the bible is an amalgamation of writings by many different men, each with his own political goals and views on morality. It is only those who hold it to be the inerrant word of their god who find themselves in the position of attempting to defend the odious passages that clearly support slavery. That attempted defense is a blatant and appalling demonstration of religious belief overriding common decency and empathy.
KN:
keiths:
KN:
Pretty much, yes.
To flesh it out a bit, it’s possible that God exists even if a) there is no evidence of his existence, or b) we’re unaware of the evidence, or c) we consider the evidence weak. None of those amounts to a falsification of the (generic) God hypothesis.
Particular God hypotheses (such as the YEC God hypothesis) can still be falsified, however.
And of course it’s even possible that God is manipulating the evidence so that we think he doesn’t exist.
This is an excellent point.
When it comes to Bible interpretation Christians are playing chess and critics are playing bumper cars.
There is no common ground whatsoever you can’t possibly split the difference between the approaches. To attempt to do so is an exercise in futility.
peace
peace
peace
and now we are back again to the problem of evil, the last refuge of the God hater.
The entire atheist beef with the almighty can be surmised thusly.
“From my limited subjective biased perspective things should have been done differently than they are therefore god is a poopyhead. ”
It’s like the child who trashes his birthday presents for just fun and then tries to kill his parents because they didn’t buy him nicer things.
Really the core difference between the Christian and the unregenerate is the realization of the gravity and universal consequences of our own sin.
peace
Yes, you are correct. I’m sure there is a plan. I’m sure those kids with cancer are a crucial part of that plan, as you’ve explained they teach us an important lesson. What that lesson is you are not able to say.
I’m sure generations enslaved is also a crucial part of the plan.
Except, of course, when you ask forgiveness of that sin it is granted. Then, not so serious and no long term punishment.
So tell me, because I sinned kids get cancer? Is that it? Or have I missed your point.
That child is a copy of it’s parents. That child learnt how to be from it’s parents. It’s parents were it’s world.
Your despicable god gave its ‘children’ the bible, a book full of hatred and oppression. Is it any wonder that child acts the way it has been brought up to act?
Remind me again FMM which was the correct interpretation of Judas falling headlong to the ground?
Did the rope break?
Did the tree break?
Was it a metaphor? If so, what for?
Noted you always want to revert to the god-hating trope, but I’d rather you address the points regarding falling headfirst while hanging by the neck.
Ever watch Judge Judy? If it does not make sense it’s usually a lie. And it makes no sense whatsoever that a hanging man falls head first.
fifth,
Your “reasoning” works just as well in the other direction: God is actually perfectly evil, but from the “limited subjective biased perspective” of the theist, he appears to be good.
When your logic leads to a conclusion and its opposite, you know you have a bad argument.
Speaking of which, you still haven’t addressed this contradiction.
For a guy who claims to be in touch with “revealed truth”, you’re sure making a lot of stupid mistakes.
That passage is not about being ordained, it’s about how to treat widows and how widows are to conduct themselves:
1 Timothy
5:1 Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren;
5:2 The elder women as mothers; the younger as sisters, with all purity.
5:3 Honour widows that are widows indeed.
5:4 But if any widow have children or nephews, let them learn first to shew piety at home, and to requite their parents: for that is good and acceptable before God.
5:5 Now she that is a widow indeed, and desolate, trusteth in God, and continueth in supplications and prayers night and day.
5:6 But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth.
5:7 And these things give in charge, that they may be blameless.
5:8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
5:9 Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man.
5:10 Well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints’ feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work.
5:11 But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry;
5:12 Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith.
5:13 And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not.
5:14 I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.
5:15 For some are already turned aside after Satan.
5:16 If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed.
As already pointed out to you (by Rumraket, I believe), atheists have no “bet with the almighty.” It would be foolish to be angry at something that doesn’t exist.
My beef, personally, is with theists who refuse to recognize the evil in their holy books, going so far as to trivialize slavery as “temporary and local.”
Actually when it comes the Biblical interpretation Christians vary
keiths, did your question not elicit the desired response?
Care to answer mine in return?
Please.
Christians are not the only people who engage in interpretation of Biblical texts.
Even atheist interpretations vary.
Why would it not likewise be foolish to attribute texts in the Bible to “the Christian god” if you are referring to a gawd that does not exist?
Perhaps being foolish isn’t enough to keep a fool from making a fool of himself.
It’s just a shorthand. I could as easily have said “the Christian concept of god” or “the evidently fictional entity described in the Christian bible”. Referring to it in the way I did grants it no more credibility than discussing the actions of Voldemort implies that Hogwarts is real.
Yet more nonsense from an atheist who loves “truth,” whatever that is
Which texts quoted in your OP describe “the Christian god”?
Is it this one?
You are the God who sees me.
Oh, wait. You declined to include that in your quote-mine of that passage.
I hence name thee Pathetrick.
The book of Joshua also demonstrates the Christian concept of god support of slavery:
The book of Joshua also demonstrates the evidently fictional entity described in the Christian bible support of slavery:
Sure. I’ll remember to plug that in whenever you speak of god or gawds.
Pathetrick.
Mung,
That’s a helluva sideshow you’re performing to avoid the actual issue, champ.
Given that none of you champions of atheism believes this “gawd” actually exists, what is the actual issue, chump?
Atheist 1: Evil exists, therefore God does not exist.
Atheist 2: God is evil, therefore God does not exist.
Atheist 3: God exists, but He is evil.
Atheist 4: It would be better if evil did not exist.
Atheist 5: It would be better if God did not exist.
Atheist 6: I pray to God that I am not wrong.
What would a good defense of God’s holy word look like?
What would an inerrantist lurker have to offer that is any better?
This is a God that you don’t actually believe exists right?
If you don’t actually believe that God exists, could you please rephrase your questions to reflect what you actually believe?
Don’t be a Pathetrick.
Mung,
Nothing like what you and fifth have presented.
That’s the question. Are they all as lame as you and fifth?
No.
The questions are about your beliefs, including the silly belief that the Bible is the inerrant word of God.
1) Suppose that God chose to reveal himself would his speech be inerrant?
2) Since a human by definition is wrong about many things how would you recognize inerrancy if you saw it?
Just for the record my answers to the above questions would be
1) yes
2) I could not on my own recognize inerrancy
peace
fifth,
The argument you just presented assumes that the Bible is the word of God. Why make such a goofy assumption?
Also, by your faulty logic, any book could be inerrant, because humans on their own can’t recognize inerrancy. That puts Mein Kampf on an equal footing with the Bible.
And of course you will now leap in and say that God revealed the truth of the Bible to you. But you just told us that you can’t recognize inerrancy, so you have no way of knowing that God revealed any such thing to you. What you think (or hope) is a revelation from God could just be a fart in your own, quite fallible brain.
It is a remarkable apologist who can’t even think one step ahead of his own argument.
It’s not an assumption it’s revelation
Inerrancy is not the same thing as moral excellence.
If Mein Kampf was with out factual error that would not make it God’s word or morally praise worthy.
I never said I can’t recognize inerrancy.
I said that I can’t on my own recognize inerrancy. Of course you know I’m not on my own
Your inability to read even that one sentence with out misunderstanding it’s meaning makes me pretty confident that you can’t recognize inerrancy on your own either
That reminds me.
Why did you not answer my questions?
peace
fifth,
You still haven’t responded to this or this. Is answering questions a duty you exempt yourself from?
As for your questions:
Who knows? He might make mistakes, or he might be dishonest.
Humans are fallible, but they can still figure things out. The Bible is full of contradictions and errors. It isn’t inerrant.
You’re the guy who has been trying, and failing, to reconcile the accounts of Judas’s death. Why not acknowledge the obvious, which is that the Bible contradicts itself?
Those aren’t questions as far as I can tell. If you have questions just ask and I’ll do my best to answer them as long as you are polite 😉
That answer is very telling.
By definition God can’t make mistakes or be dishonest. I’m surprised you did not know that
That was not the question.
The question was could you recognize inerrancy if you saw it?
You must have me mistaken for someone else perhaps a phantom enemy who inhabits your imagination.
peace
fifth,
Don’t play dumb, fifth. This comment shows that your “argument” leads just as readily to the conclusion that God is perfectly evil as it does to the conclusion that God is perfectly good. Can you defend your argument?
This comment points out an embarrassing contradiction in your position. Can you resolve it? If not, which of your arguments was in error?
you are going to have to unpack your comment because. I can’t make heads or tails of it.
You seem to be saying that because I said your position seems to be “I don’t like the way God did it” that means that God could be bad and I would think he’s good because I like the way he did it.
That does not make sense to me because I don’t think God’s good because I like the way he did things. That is not even close to my position
I think God is good because he is God and good is defined as that which corresponds to the character of God.
peace
This is even more confusing than your first comment.
The Bible is clear that the law resulted in more sinfulness in the unregenerate and it’s also clear that the presence of the Holy Spirit leads to less sinfulness in the regenerate.
unless I misunderstand you completely there is no contradiction in those statements at all not even an apparent one.
Perhaps you need to think about what is being said instead of throwing stuff wildly in the hope that something will stick
peace
Hey keiths,
Don’t forget to answer the question I asked.
quote:
The question was could you recognize inerrancy if you saw it?
end quote:
I might add an “If yes how?”
peace
fifth:
projection
noun pro·jec·tion \prə-ˈjek-shən\
6 b : the attribution of one’s own ideas, feelings, or attitudes to other people or to objects; especially : the externalization of blame, guilt, or responsibility as a defense against anxiety
fifth,
Then why didn’t God hit on this obvious strategy?
He should have filled the Bible with commandments to do evil and nothing but evil. The unregenerate would rebel against his laws by doing good. The regenerate would know, via the Holy Spirit, to invert the meanings of the laws, so they too would do good.
It’s a win-win. Why wasn’t God smart enough to think of that?
Anyway, for entertainment, could you employ the regenerate/unregenerate calculus to show us why God filled an entire chapter in Leviticus with laws concerning “discharges causing uncleanness”, but refused to add a single sentence saying “Oh, and by the way, don’t enslave people”?
fifth,
Then why do you feel the need to invert the meaning of biblical passages? Why not just say “In the Bible, God explicitly allows slavery and the beating of slaves, and he commands slaves to obey their masters. If God was fine with it, who am I to object?”
And for the record, do you think this command is an example of God’s goodness?
Christians, be sure and read that passage to your children tonight. It comes from the International Children’s Bible, after all.
fifth,
Regarding your question about inerrancy, the issue has never come up. The Bible is full of errors and contradictions, so it is obviously not inerrant.
Where did you get the crazy idea that it is? Be specific — no vague “through revelation” answers.
fifth,
Regarding God’s goodness, here’s another Bible passage for you to explain away:
Because it’s not the best strategy. We know that Because God is God and by definition his strategy is the best one
Because God being God can’t command you to do what is evil.
we’ve already covered this perhaps you missed it.
Because uncleanliness in the bible is used as a picture of all sin. knowing how to deal with sin is important to all people of all times. Taken spiritually the chapter in Leviticus is very relevant to a man 21st century America dealing with anger issues.
On the other hand everyone already knows that slavery is wrong and the vast majority of people in the universe live in a time and place where institutionalized slavery is not a live issue
peace
Because as we have already repeatedly covered Jesus makes it clear that the entire OT is consistent with command to love your neighbor as yourself so understanding the Bible to allow anything that would be inconsistent with loving your neighbor as yourself would be misinterpreting it.
This is not difficult a difficult thing to understand why you are having such trouble is beyond me.
It’s coming up now why not answer the question?
Revelation is not a vague answer.
I know the Bible is inerrant because it’s Gods word and God does not make errors.
peace
you need to ask questions instead of making vague demands.
I see nothing in the passage that need explaining. It speaks for itself.
If you are asking why Jesus would say that only God is good that is because only God is Good
If you are asking why Jesus pointed this fact out to his questioner that is I believe because he wanted to point out his own divinity. here is the syllogism
premise 1) Only God is Good
premise 2) Jesus is Good
conclusion ) Jesus is God
It seems pretty strait forward to me
peace
Now, therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee. 1 Kings 22:23
Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets. 2 Chronicles 18:22
Ah, Lord GOD! surely thou hast greatly deceived this people. Jeremiah 4:10
O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived. Jeremiah 20:7
And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet. Ezekiel 14:9
For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie. 2 Thessalonians 2:11
So when he orders….
….it must be a good thing.
If it’s not revelation it must be presupposition.
Since the old testament clearly sanctions slavery (as do parts of the new testament), accepting your interpretation ad arguendo leads to the conclusion that the definition of “neighbor” is remarkably flexible.
The fact of the matter is that your holy book contains numerous internal contradictions. You can ignore them as hard as you like, but that doesn’t make them disappear, it just makes you look hopelessly indoctrinated.
Do explain what Judas did with his 30 pieces of silver, for just one example.
fifth,
I see you carefully avoided this question:
Killing children and small babies is a good thing, right?
As you say:
Sure, ignore the camels and donkeys.
Patrick,
google is your friend
http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/does-god-lie
peace
Would it be a bad thing to kill Hitler when he was young if you could save millions of lives in the process?
God is uniquely qualified to know what evil a person or group of persons would do if given the opportunity. So he is uniquely qualified to make that sort of determination and to make sure that no innocent life was taken in the process.
Do you have any empirical evidence whatsoever that even a single child died as a result of a command given to the pre-exile nation of Israel?
Just a few decades ago the United States government made the decision to kill hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians including thousands of women and children on the mere hope that such and act would save the lives of an undetermined number of American solders.
Was this an unquestionably evil act in your opinion? If so what punishment should the people of the United States receive for their actions?
peace
there you go again asserting that the Bible can be clear and contradictory at the same time.
This sort of thing is “weirdly normal” for you 😉
I’m glad that you do such a “good job of misunderstanding” the meaning of contradiction 😉
Could you please “repeat that zero times”? “Clarity is so obscure” it’s difficult to recognize 😉
nuff said
Wrong again, Jesus gives a precise definition of neighbor that would even include even include a persons worst enemy Luke:10
The Bible is handy that way in that it often defines it’s own terms
peace
It can be, If for example you are omniscient and can see that great irreparable harm to millions will definitely result if you do not stop the evil these people will commit in the future.
peace