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.
no but I see you continue to carefully avoid my question
Could you recognize inerrancy if you saw it? If so how?
peace
Not if it required the use of his senses.
I’ve told you before that I’m not an inerrantist. Kindly pause to let that sink in so that you can reduce the likelihood you’ll keep making a fool of yourself.
keiths, I answered your question, do you intend to continue avoiding answering mine? If so just say so and I’ll stop asking.
Thank you.
Mung,
What question are you talking about?
Mung,
Here’s what you actually told me:
I asked the obvious follow-on question:
You never answered, despite being asked repeatedly. Will you answer it now?
Do you think the autographs were “infallible and totally without errors”?
keiths, to fifth:
fifth:
Yes, because every single Amalekite man, woman, child, baby, cow, sheep, camel, and donkey was going to cause “great irreparable harm to millions” if allowed to live. Not a single decent man, woman, child, baby, cow, sheep, camel, or donkey in the bunch.
Fifth, do you ever stop and actually think about the idiocy you spout in the name of God?
If only we could send FMM back in time so he can calmly explain to the mothers watching their children being butchered that despite appearances this is actually a good thing.
That would explain why God killed Hitler when he was young.
Hang on a sec….
But, as it turns out, your god can do evil itself.
1. The Christian God is supposed to be omniscient, omnipotent, and very proud.
2. No proud, self-respecting omnipotent God would allow someone as incompetent as fifthmonarchyman to speak on his behalf.
3. Fifthmonarchyman speaks regularly and at length in defense of the Christian God at TSZ, and in so doing makes Christianity look ridiculous.
4. Therefore, the Christian God does not exist. If he did exist, fifth would get DNS errors every time he tried to access TSZ, or the ‘Post Comment’ button would mysteriously fail to work.
If FMM’s version of Christianity is correct then everything FMM writes in its defence was pre-ordained by God from before time began.
But then everything we say in response to FMM was similarly pre-ordained.
So basically it’s just God having an argument with himself.
Three cheers for reformed theology!
I provided verses demonstrating that the god described in your bible does lie. I’ve also provided many links that demonstrate that your bible contains clear contradictions. You seem to be avoiding the question of what Judas did with his 30 pieces of silver.
As already noted, the passages sanctioning slavery are very clear. The passages that you interpret as condemning slavery never explicitly state that the previous passages were wrong.
Another way your bible is both clear and contradictory is when it describes what Judas did with his reward for betraying Jesus. Did he throw it on the floor of the temple or did he buy a field with it?
How can a text be contradictory if it is not clear?
No need to go back in time, a visit to any pediatric oncology ward would do just fine to show the glory of his god.
Revelation.
The mental hoop jumping they use to justify their ‘explanation’ is amazing.
Peter had some money. Peter gave a beggar the money. The beggar used the money to buy heroin. Peter bought heroin with the money.
I’m still looking forward to fifth’s description of what would have happened if the marauding Amalekite sheep hadn’t been stopped in their tracks, praise be to God.
I must have missed it.
I have a hard time keeping up with the rapid fire off topic noise
again, It only takes seconds to google this stuff if you are actually interested.
http://www.thywordistrue.com/contradictions/126-what-did-judas-do-with-the-money
peace
I expect sheep would have been taken as booty and BBQ-ed a little later. This would have given the impression that the war was really all about oil I mean sheep.
peace
fifth,
Sure, we can Google it. The problem is that the search results are just as ridiculous as the one you linked to.
OMagain summed it up:
Ditto for me.
Just let me know if you refuse to answer keiths
peace
It’s only ridiculous if you begin with the assumption that Christianity is false.
If you simply give the author of the Bible the same benefit of the doubt you would expect for something you wrote these childish pseudo contradictions simply evaporate.
peace
I’d say that If you give money to a beggar knowing for certain that he will buy heroin you are partially responsible for his purchase.
peace
fifth,
I thought you knew your Bible. 1 Samuel 15 tells what happened.
God was pissed at Saul because he disobeyed, not because of the danger of maurauding Amalekite sheep.
fifth,
Judas didn’t know that the priests were going to buy a field with the money.
Think, fifth.
fifth,
I can’t figure out why you’re obsessed with the question. It doesn’t help your case.
If you’re trying to figure out whether a book is inerrant, you look for errors in it. If you find them, it isn’t inerrant.
The Bible is full of inconsistencies and errors. It isn’t inerrant.
fifth,
It’s exactly the opposite.
If a history book said in one chapter that Göring died in his prison cell by taking cyanide, and in another chapter said that he died days later on the gallows, we would conclude that the book contained at least one error.
Applying that same standard to the Bible, in regard to the accounts of Judas’s death and what he did with the money, we reach the same conclusion. The Bible isn’t inerrant.
Obviously.
How is this relevant? We’re talking about the Bible we have today, aren’t we? Or are you and Patrick quoting from the original autographs?
You asked me whether the Bible condones slavery. My answer was yes.
I then asked you some questions:
I mean, if slavery isn’t always and forever wrong for all cultures and and all people throughout all time, what is your beef with the passages from the Bible that condone slavery?
On what basis do you and Patrick condemn the Bible for condoning slavery? If you have one.
You, in your limitless compassion, would butcher the women before the children?
One day you plan to have in your possession the original autographs?
You mean the Bible you have today. Right?
So why ought my answer apply to anything other than the Bible we’re both talking about? Why should I answer questions about a Bible neither one of us has in our possession and one that no one is ever likely to have in their possession?
When I say that the Bible we have today is not inerrant, why aren’t you satisfied? Why the tangent into hypotheticals?
Makes no difference. Butchering all the way down.
keiths:
Mung:
It should be obvious, Mung.
But if it isn’t, then answer these two questions and I’ll spell it out for you:
1. Do you think the autographs were “infallible and totally without errors”?
2. Do you believe that God condones slavery?
What did people do before google? How did they interpret it without a ‘professional interpreter’?
Is the only reason you can think to ask a question is if it will help a supposed case? How sad
I’m not trying to advance any case. The only reason I’m posting in this thread is to keep your God obsession from bleeding into a other threads.
I asked the question because I’m interested to know whether you would grant that it is impossible for you recognize inerrancy if you saw it.
I’m also interested in whether you have the ability to engage in an actual give and take conversation.
peace
It’s called bible study and it’s a corporate activity that Christians engage in all the time. The reason you haven’t heard of it is probably because It does not work for unregenerate apostates
peace
This assumes facts not in evidence. When you have them in evidence we can discuss them. Otherwise it’s an irrelevant question. We’re talking about the Bible we have today, not some imaginary Bible that you appear to need for some reason that is totally lost on me.
I already told you I think the Bible condones slavery. Sheesh, do the math. Care to reflect on why you asked that question if it’s not relevant to your argument and share that with the rest of us?
So now that you’ve moved the goalposts…
Yes I think God condoned slavery. Are you going anywhere with these questions, ’cause I’d sure love to see you come to some conclusion at some point. You know, a therefore … what?
If ever someone could make me believe in a literal hell you’d be the one.
And still keiths can’t be bothered to answer the question I asked him. If you aren’t going to answer, keiths, just say so and I’ll stop asking.
keiths, have anyone ever pointed out how you’re all questions and no arguments?
Yeah, probably.
I detect a tendency 😉
peace
Just to head off any misinterpretations
Do you think he condoned race based chattel slavery as practiced on plantations in the US in the 19th century?
peace
whoa! Are you insinuating that Patrick and keiths might be equivocating over the term slavery?
I do not think Leviticus was written to 19th century white plantation owners, not even if they were Jewish.
I think people who cavalierly equivocate over the term slavery should have to experience it till they can define it unambiguously .
😉
LoL!
I agree!
ETA: I condone that.
Mung:
And:
Meanwhile, fifth explains why God couldn’t be bothered to prohibit slavery:
keiths:
fifth:
With exemplars like Mung and fifth, who wouldn’t want to be a Christian? Sign me up!
No one want’s to be a Christian. We are all Godhaters at heart
It’s called total depravity and the only antidote is irresistible grace
You might want to check it out.
peace
What a pile of squirming and nonsense.
Here are the actual verses:
Matthew 27:5 And he [Judas] cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.
Acts 1:18 Now this man [Judas] purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
That second verse doesn’t say anything about priests buying the field, it says Judas did. Both cannot be correct. Your bible is not inerrant.
No, it’s ridiculous when approached objectively. You are unable to do so. You approach it with the assumption that it must be true or your entire identity collapses.
Not at all. Sit in on any discussion with the author of a book series. You will find fans who note every contradiction and inconsistency. It’s interesting to note that the Harry Potter series has far fewer contradictions in far more pages than your bible. It’s almost like both are the work of fallible humans.