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.
petrushka,
I answered on the “Cartesian skepticism” thread.
Why would being in different gospels make a difference?
Have you told this to Barry, StephenB, KairosFocus, News or yourself with regard to evolution and biology? They might be interested in your opinion.
WJM: “ only take seriously those who rationally warrant my taking their views seriously – meaning knowledge, training, experience.”
Please see my previous comment.
But can you really know he is mocking you?
vjtorley,
“Just a quick question. How would an atheist argue that slavery is wrong?”
Ahh. The old objective vs subjective morality bullshit.
Very simple. I wouldn’t like to be a slave so I would expect others to feel the same way. Golden rule.
newton,
No, but I can know* it.
FMM, as KF would say, distracting is not an argument. Herod is said to have ordered the killing of newborns to kill Jesus. Unfortunately for the scriptures, Herod died many years before Jesus was born. Stating that this comes from two different gospels just provides more evidence for the contradictions in the bible.
But since you brought it up, do you want to discuss the contradiction in timing of the census that did not take place at the time of Jesus’ birth? The census took place at least four years BC. But, there are no contradictions in the bible.
Arcatia said:
I don’t attempt to make scientific arguments about biology or evolution because, as I have admitted several times here, I don’t have the necessary understanding or expertise.
Alan Fox said;
You (and others) suffer from a fundamental misunderstanding; when I use the term “professional” in terms of interpreting spiritual text, or use an analogy to describe the propensity of lay people to misunderstand phrases and terms (in essence, quote-mining), the analogy is not between people that properly understand the text, but rather the analogy is comparing secular areas of understanding with spiritual areas of understanding.
Asking one with a spiritual understanding to make cogent secular arguments concerning a spiritual text that don’t require spiritual understanding would be like asking me to explain aspects of web design without referring to code, internet protocols or design programs.
Let’s look at it this way; one can pull quotes out of the work of evolutionary biologists all day long that make it look like that biologist is promoting intelligent design or abandoning Darwinistic evolution, and you guys will jump all over it (and have, in the past) claiming that it is quote-mining. Your side often points out that without a proper understanding of the entire context of the quoted statements, one can easily be misled by that ignorance into thinking the author is saying something they are not, or that the results of the experiment or study means something they do not.
If the realm of spirit exists, and spiritual knowledge exists in general as proposed to be at least somewhat inexplicable in physical terms and even by human description, then it follows that a reading of a spiritual text by those without spiritual understanding will commit the same kind of error as those who quote-mine from or misunderstand any area of knowledge they are largely ignorant of, especially if they are making such readings with a predisposition critical of the field in general.
This isn’t proposed to just be a textual issue, one that can be resolved by patient explanation using words and terminology that the other person can understand, but rather to be an issue that cannot be resolved that way; that an entirely different kind of knowledge and understanding that is beyond the capacity of language to bridge is required for the proper understanding of a specific spiritual text.
That’s a huge “if”, with no evidence to support the supposition.
How very convenient for those who argue for biblical inerrancy despite clear contradictions in the text or who want to assert that the bible doesn’t sanction slavery despite passages that explicitly do. You simply claim to be right and that you can’t be required to support your claim because it’s “beyond the capacity of language”.
That is, of course, operationally indistinguishable from being baseless.
Bill O’Reilly is almost as insensitive as fifthmonarchyman:
Bill says they were well-fed and had decent lodgings. fifthmonarchyman says that slavery is “temporary and local”. I guess that makes it all okay.
Fixed it.
Why does FMM keep on bringing in Bible quotes, as if they are quite obvious in meaning? Like this one, apparently used to argue that the reprobates can’t understand the Bible, yet assuming that they can (at least in part):
Oh, what does that mean? I can’t figure it out. Why are these indecipherable strings of characters thrown at someone like myself who can’t understand them?
No, that’s idiotic, FMM knew very well that we can figure out what that means, even though he used them to pretend that we can’t. Elsewhere, or something. When matters become uncomfortable, it seems.
It would be stupid to pretend that some non-religious people are not tin-eared on some of these matters, but it’s as ridiculous to assume that only FMM and others beholden to bogus re-interpretations that suit their own purposes are the only ones who understand the Bible.
There’s nothing expert about FMM’s take on the Bible, it’s rather amateurish and relatively uninformed by good scholarship. What is more, when quote-mining of experts on matters biological is the issue, the point is not that non-experts cannot understand the matter at all, it’s that they ought really to learn to understand the issues, and often some guidance is given in order that this might take place. FMM tries to do this (poorly), while simultaneously bringing in a text to suggest that doing so is useless–while still assuming that it was not useless to bring in that text. It’s a circle of misunderstanding, to be sure, but it’s largely FMM’s circle.
Glen Davidson
“I have the correct spiritual understanding.”
“No, it is I who hath the correct spiritual understanding.”
“No, no, it is in fact me – I alone understand these spiritual texts.”
….ad nauseam.
Just like your objective morality, WJM, ‘spiritual understanding’ is every bit as conveniently opaque, hermetically sealed from criticism and perfectly indistinguishable from clap-trap.
petrushka,
That is, of course, operationally indistinguishable from being baseless bullshit (evolution).
Fixed it.
Two issues come to mind here:
1) This strikes me as a map/territory confusion error. In other words, while there might be a legitimate argument against secular people experiencing some spiritual phenomenon (the territory) due to lack of belief in the spiritual or lack of spiritual sensitivity or spiritual or even because they have not been imbued with some “spiritual spirit”, saying that such folks have no ability to comprehend the writings (the map) of those who have those qualities strikes me as either special pleading or begging the question.
2) If some “spiritual knowledge” from some deity is required to be able to understand text dictated by said deity to faithful vessel writers, why have a text in the first place? Why not just imbue the faithful with this “spiritual knowledge” directly and dictate what you want the faithful to know on an individual basis? Is this God of evangelical Christianity incapable of mass communication and using his MindPhone?
Robin,
1: It’s only special pleading if you mistake an analogy for an example. It’s hardly a novel proposition that a spiritual component is necessary to understand certain spiritually-informed texts. It may not be convenient for your desire to offer a significant criticism of such texts from a secular perspective, but the point is rather easily understood and is indeed applicable.
2: You again want an explanation in secular terms for a thing that may not be reducible to secular phrasings and concepts. In the various spiritual doctrines I have been a part of in my life, such books were never intended to impart any true spiritual knowledge, but rather to reflect and represent what could only be really understood non-linguistically.
For example, a book might try to describe love, but is the does any string of words really describe exactly what it is to experience love? Wouldn’t some of the descriptions even be contradictory? If one has not ever experienced love, or sight, or sound, how would someone else describe these things meaningfully?
And so we have books about spiritual matters that are here for the benefit of those that can understand them. Some describe their presence here to be like a mantra or a rosary – a physical object that aids in maintaining one’s spiritual awakeness and focus.
GlenDavidson,
You’ll have to ask FMM.
It would be a matter of choice by an omniscient deity, it does seem to have an advantage to all who claim they can determine the true meanings.
Being novel or an analogy doesn’t change the special pleading. There’s a reason that most religions and in fact most Christian scholars reject such a dubious argument.
Hardly. My argument is straight-forward logic: if an omni-deity can communicate “spiritual knowledge” directly for some level of understanding, It clearly doesn’t require any physical medium to communicate knowledge. Any further claim of “deity inspired text” immediately becomes dubious and weak at best. It becomes a convenient hand-wave of “special authority pleading” for any item of inconvenience.
As analogy or other such conventions. But accepting that such approaches to describing complex concepts and ideas – including allegory, parable, and metaphor – does then render “literal” interpretations erroneous. It also renders special pleading for “spiritual knowledge” (or even direct experience of love) dubious as well.
In fact, this example better supports my point then yours. No poet, play writer, satirist, or writer of historical fiction ever claims that the reader “had to be there” or experience all range of interaction to get their points. The whole reason such folks relate such things (particularly those that have become popular) is because the vast majority of humans, in spite of any “special or selective knowledge” can relate to allegories, metaphors, parables, an analogies for the very specific reason that good authors can relate the abstract to the concrete. If the Christian god is too dense to be able to do that, It’s not a god worth worshiping. But really…that isn’t the case. Rather, it’s fundamentalist Christians who just can’t accept that the bible really is just a pretty darn good work of men who used – like other authors of the day – the writing tools available to relate complex and abstract concepts to their varied audience so that everyone would indeed get their point. If that weren’t the case, Christianity would have died off 2000 years ago.
If that were the case, all branches of Christianity would hold to such an explanation and belief, but only a really small minority do. Nearly all Christian scholars reject such.
William,
You’ve told us that you don’t understand Exodus 21:20-21:
What spiritual texts can you “properly interpret”, and how do you know that?
Please be specific.
All text, all speech, all art and all music are attempts to communicate ideas and experiences that we do not (and probably cannot) ever fully understand.
Then why is discussion of so-called ‘spiritual’ artefacts (e.g. scripture) deemed uniquely futile unless one has acquired some mysterious level of understanding?
Who is the arbiter of these things?
Who is qualified to decide whether my soul is sufficiently enlightened to critically examine these ‘spiritual’ ideas?
Is a broken and bloodied slave insufficiently spiritual to understand the rules of the game?
keiths,
I think William is simply suggesting that one has to be open to spiritual understanding to gain spiritual understanding.
At least that is certainly my experience. For instance, if one believes in karma, one will certainly see examples of karma in one’s own actions.
I think that if the issue were “having Jesus in one’s heart” or being “born again” one would tend to suspect the claims of someone who has never been obviously spiritual at all when that person would tell us what it’s all about, and one might rather listen to the person who has been “born again” to tell us what it’s really like.
There are areas like those in which the spiritual are bound to be more knowledgeable, at least in recognizing what the experience is like. Understanding what words in a legal code in Exodus mean is really quite a different matter, and there is no obvious reason why FMM or any other religious person has better standing than anyone else in understanding what those words mean.
Glen Davidson
I have no problem with this caveat, but it’s silly to try to extend this to arguing that the text in Exodus as written doesn’t sanction slavery.
Sure, but confirmation bias is well-documented, thus such “evidence” is generally dismissed by those who can then point to examples that counter the bias.
It means that by the time 1 Corinthians was written the proto-Christians already knew they were wed to a pile of rhetorical claptrap that they had to hand-wave away.
Or, in other words, one has to be gullible to belief bullshit. One would have thought that was self-evident.
Perhaps. I guess it depends how you define bullshit. I suspect there is variation in how strong the appeal is for “spiritual” explanations. For those of us deaf to that particular music, all we have left to ponder is are we missing something.
Any money that priests and those in charge can understand the Spirit of the word of god, and have no trouble at all explaining the resulting obligations to the little people.
KeithS,
Whilst WJM and Phoodoo can’t give you specifics of the emperor’s clothes themselves, rest assured there are many many reputable spiritual tailors who can. We presume.
And when they disagree, as people with spiritual discernment so frequently do, you just have to pick the ones with the truth. You might think that’s difficult to do, since they all claim to have the truth. But no, you must pick the people who agree with yourself, for they have the truth.
Every time.
Glen Davidson
That’s human nature. Tribalism.
God
peace
There is your problem,
You don’t go to people to find the truth even folks with spiritual discernment can be mistaken.
If you are looking for truth you will only find it at the source
quote:
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
(Joh 14:6)
end quote:
peace
I don’t endorse this guy but I find this antidote to be pretty funny
quote:
Some years ago a student came to me in anguish, confessing that he intended to convert from his Protestantism to Roman Catholicism. He was in anguish because, of course, this would cause some consternation, if not disruption, within his family and among his friends. I asked him why he planned to convert and he said “Because I need someone else to tell me what is true.” He clearly meant (and said) he wanted the pope to decide truth for him. First, with tongue in cheek, I offered to be his desired arbiter, decider, of truth. He declined my offer. Second, I pointed out to him that by deciding to convert he was deciding for himself what to believe about truth. He had not thought of that.
end quote:
from here
😉
peace
We have at least four comments in succession here that show a fundamental avalanche of misunderstanding of what I just wrote, and shows how little you all are at separating religion from spirituality. I care very little about religion :
“You have to be gullible to believe bullshit”
“And when they disagree, as people with spiritual discernment so frequently do, you just have to pick the ones with the truth. ”
“Any money that priests and those in charge can understand the Spirit of the word of god, and have no trouble at all explaining the resulting obligations to the little people.”
“Sure, but confirmation bias is well-documented, thus such “evidence” is generally dismissed by those who can then point to examples that counter the bias.”
All of these statements are talking about accepting what others tell you. If that is your goal, or your methodology, it should come as no surprise that you have found very little enlightenment. That many of you don’t like priests or hated your Sunday school classes is not particularly newsworthy.
Nevertheless, I suspect very few of you actually live your lives as if you really believe you and your loved ones are in fact a meaningless mix of accidental chemical reactions. If one is not interested in exploring why their own sense of identity is in such conflict with their stated world philosophy, it has no bearing on me at all.
My only gap in experience is being able to imagine a world that is not utterly full of improbable synchronicities, because I have never lived in that particular world.
phoodoo,
That’s right. Instead, we live our lives as if we and our loved ones are meaningful mixes of non-accidental chemical and physical reactions, shaped by evolution — because that’s what the evidence tells us.
You should try paying attention to the evidence for a change, phoo.
He goes to UD for ‘education’
phoodoo,
“Nevertheless, I suspect very few of you actually live your lives as if you really believe you and your loved ones are in fact a meaningless mix of accidental chemical reactions.”
Very true. But since nobody with even a grade school understanding of evolution thinks that we are just meaningless mixes of accidental chemical reactions, your point is meaningless.
But, given that we believe that this life is all that we get, we tend to make the most of it and not console ourselves with an empty promise of some mythical afterlife.
Sounds hopelessly subjective. On the other hand, spiritual knowledge would not require the Bible to be true to be a source of that knowledge.It is belief that is required for spiritual knowledge not accuracy. Bizarro science.
And if one of your beliefs is that your belief is objectively true, you are home free.
Reposting this in hopes that fifth will grow a pair and actually answer:
fifth:
Ha. What a cop-out.
I do understand what the text means, as does everyone else whose brain isn’t addled by so-called “spiritual understanding”. The language of the passage is simple, straightforward, and easy to interpret. I summarized it here:
Unfortunately for you, the straightforward, sensible interpretation of the passage clashes with your ridiculous claim that the Bible does not endorse slavery.
So let’s hear it. What do you think the passage means?
I know you’d rather not answer the question, but put the excuses aside and defend your position.
How do you know? Mind powers?
Reading and reasoning powers, Alan.
Don’t you ever learn?
keiths,
Certain of that?
All science is illegitimate because we can’t know if our senses are veridical, but we should still pay attention to evidence for the basis of our beliefs?
You’re hilarious!
Of course we should, KN, and I haven’t said that “all science is illegitimate.”
We can’t know things about the world, but we can still know* them, and that’s absolutely worth doing.
Did you actually think that Cartesian skepticism was a science stopper?
Man, this topic really has you flummoxed.
This is simply incorrect.
1) If the Bible is God’s word it is true by definition.
2) Knowledge is justified true belief therefore knowledge can’t be based on something that is false
peace
your inability to understand my answer does not constitute a lack of answer on my part
No you don’t. The Bible is spiritual and you can’t understand spiritual things
Ive asked this before but I’ll try again just for kicks
Does US Law endorse pornography because it regulates it. What about voluntary genital mutilation?
Is this practice endorsed because it is allowed under US penal code?
Once you answer that question we can continue if you insist.
But I will repeat you will never understand what the text actually means
peace
I already told you from the perspective of the NC it is about the relationship between an unregenerate person and sin/law.
peace
Utter nonsense given the audience that Exodus was presented to. Your understanding of the bible is really quite misguided.