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.
Imagine that you are tasked with explaining this passage to another Christian.
One who is obviously saved and clearly washed in the blood of Christ but has not yet read and understood every jot and tittle in the Bible.
“Please Mr. Monarchy” she beseeches you, “would you be kind enough to explain what this passage….”
“…..actually means?”
Will you help her out?
The source is full of contradictions and sanctions evils like slavery. You need to address those problems before using it as the basis for an argument.
I haven’t seen anyone here claiming to hold that belief. Our lives and the people we love have the meanings we give them.
That does not follow from the text. Who are you to reinterpret your god’s clear words?
Even if I accept that for the sake of argument, is it not the case that the average reader of the bible would see that and, if they happened to be a slave owner, think it applied to them?
If god is so wise, could it not see the potential for misinterpretation? Perhaps some kind of disclaimer after every mention of slaves?
I’m talking about SPIRITUAL SLAVES people, actual owning of people is bad m’kay
Something like that perhaps? And out of interest, if it’s about the relationship between an unregenerate person and sin/law who is being beaten to death? Who is the master doing the beating? What relevance does it have if the slave survives for a few days?
It’s kind of astonishing that even after all this time of participating at TSZ, phoodoo still cannot grasp that no one here has the “stated world philosophy” that his own dogmatic commitments demand of us that we have. And yet instead of taking the time to learn anything at all about what anyone here actually believes, he insists that everyone here is inconsistent.
Well, my days of not taking phoodoo seriously are certainly come to a middle.
Kantian Naturalist,
Unfortunately for you, a true materialistic worldview is EXACTLY as I described.
And yet, no one is willing to accept that is the reality of believing in an unplanned universe, so we end up with utterly stupid philosophies like “our loved ones have the meaning we give them” and “we and our loved ones are meaningful mixes of non-accidental chemical and physical reactions” (what does non-accidental from a purely materialistic perspective mean one is left to wonder-or not wonder, as it is just nonsense).
You are not even smart enough to understand what you own philosophy means, so why should I expect you to be able to explain it to anyone else.
The more curious part however is why you are offended about what others think of your beliefs. I certainly could care less what you think of my believes, I am simply showing why yours are so inconsistent. Yet there is an unmistakable whiff of insecurity and defensiveness about your own worldview.
Or perhaps like many philosophers, you are simply entirely humorless and uptight.
How could you learn anything from people who are so inconsistent?
See, it may be circular reasoning, but it sure is consistent (and resistant to learning).
Glen Davidson
They fight a strawman all their lives because they are too busy saying things to listen and actually understand what it is they are against.
fifth,
That’s pretty ridiculous, but let’s set that aside and concentrate on the Old Covenant meaning.
What was God saying to the Israelites when he issued these instructions?
To an unbiased reader, it’s obvious that God was talking about actual slaves, actual beatings, actual death, and actual property. What does it look like through God goggles?
You’re confusing an observation with a philosophy.
If past experience is any indication, fifthmonarchyman will say that since you’re not explicitly assuming that the bible is true you are explicitly assuming it is false, so you’re not unbiased.
It means, time to babble like a–uh, well, an apologist.
Glen Davidson
I call it “beating a straw horse”: constantly refuting a view that no one has every actually held.
Kantian Naturalist,
Really KN? No one holds the believe that life is a series of purposeless accidents huh? No one holds the belief that what we really are is just unplanned replicators, that survived well? No one holds the belief that there is no meaning to this world other than other needs of our consciousness to make patterns huh? No one believes that all of life really is is just chemical states that have accumulated into accidental consciousness?
Well, gee, maybe we really do agree afterall KN.
I have a feeling you could be wrong though, I think there might be a few folks that actually do believe that. But I guess you find folks like Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens just as foolish as I do.
Well, I shouldn’t presume to speak for anyone else here, but I certainly don’t.
I can’t speak for anyone else here, but I certainly don’t.
I definitely don’t believe that.
And I definitely don’t believe that, either.
Without going into details of little interest to others here, I’d say that I identify most strongly with the tradition of religious naturalism. Right now I’m reading Becoming Animal. I find his conflation of scientific practice and public-school science education (or miseducation) frustrating but generally speaking I think Abram does an excellent job of articulating what is like to experience nature as the site of an immanent spirituality.
I respect Dennett as a philosopher of mind, though I disagree with him on several fundamental issues. I’ve learned a lot from Dennett’s criticisms of Chalmers (on consciousness), Searle (on intentionality), and Brandom (on language as original intentionality), but I’ve also learned a lot from criticisms of Dennett raised by Joe Margolis, Taylor Carman, and Teed Rockwell. I never actually read Breaking the Spell and don’t intend to.
Dawkins I used to respect as an evolutionary theorist but I was repulsed by the sneering Oxbridge elitism of The God Delusion. I have found some value in Hitchens’ journalism over the years but I thought God Is Not Great was very bad.
I can’t speak for KN or anyone else, but I certainly don’t think any of those things, but mostly because I find your descriptions completely erroneous and fallacious. All your atheistic perspective descriptions rely upon non-sequitur relative teleological and baggage-loaded assumptions. Purposeless, for example, assumes inherent qualities of purpose that are being ignored. Accidents implies “unfortunate incident” obstructing or derailing some intent, goal, or plan. Unplanned assumes there’s some reason to reject an implied plan. And so on.
None of those terms are applicable in my opinion. I don’t find any need to even consider that life is unplanned because there’s no reason to even consider a concept like “planning” in the first place. Life can’t be an accident by definition as far as I’m concerned because there’s nothing either “unexpected” about it (there’s no probability that life should or should not be, so life can be neither “probable” or “improbable” and thus cannot be “expected” or “unexpected”), nor can it be “unfortunate” or “fortune”, because there’s nothing to indicate life can be evaluated in such a manner. Life just is as far as I’m concerned; it’s simply a configuration of matter in this universe. No particular evaluation beyond that makes any sense to me.
As for no purpose, why must purpose come from some third-party’s grand plan? Why can’t purpose come from the universe itself? My purpose is to be here. I’m fulfilling my purpose. I’m good with that.
I have no idea if there’s anyone out there who actually holds the views you describe, but I do know (having read their works) that Dennet, Dawkins, and Hitchen do not (did not in the latter’s case) hold those views.
Not exactly but you are assuming that the Bible can be false.
If it’s possible that the Bible can be false then Christianity is false.
Because to be a Christian you must assume that God is faithful.
I can’t think of a more biased position than assuming that Christianity is false from the outset.
peace
God was saying something like.
“You hard hearted rebels, After all I’ve done for you if you insist on disobeying me by keeping slaves you will suffer the same punishment when you murder your captive as you do when you murder your best friend “.
something like that
peace
fifth,
You can’t be serious.
You’re suggesting that God wrote an entire chapter of Exodus — a chapter dealing with slaves and personal injuries, in which he precisely specifies the punishments for various infractions — but that he didn’t mean it literally.
The preceding chapter, Exodus 20, contains the ten commandments. Are you going to tell us that he didn’t mean them literally, either?
Or the subsequent chapter, and the one after, both of which are full of laws and specified punishments?
Obviously not. But then how did you, with your superior spiritual discernment, decide that Exodus 21 shouldn’t be taken as written, when the preceding and subsequent chapters are clearly meant to be taken that way?
Was it the opening line of Exodus 21?
That doesn’t sound like “don’t take this literally” to me. But then again, I lack your “spiritual understanding”.
And what about all of the Biblical scholars who think that Exodus 21:20-21 means what it says? Are they all idiots lacking the gifts of spiritual discernment?
I renominate you for Worst Apologist Ever.
And by the way, your hopeful paraphrase would better be rendered as
Doesn’t exactly get the message across, does it? Apparently God is as bad at communication as you are at apologetics.
And most obviously of all, if God meant what you say he meant, why didn’t he write what he meant?
Was he really too inept to see that his words would be taken as written by Jews and Christians lacking your “special” gifts?
1) How is that different than what happened when a member of the OC struck anyone even their best friend? Hint it’s not. That is because the section is dealing with the punishment for murder not with proper treatment of slaves.
2) In no way was it no harm no foul, it only exempted you from having to deal with the avenger of blood.
quote:
But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
“When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye. If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free because of his tooth.
(Exo 21:23-27)
end quote:
3) Did you even catch the context of the passage?
quote:
“Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.
(Exo 21:16)
end quote:
Peace
It’s spelled Raymond Luxury Yacht, but it’s pronounced Throatwobbler Mangrove.
You’d know that if you were spiritual enough.
Glen Davidson
The fact that you’d mock and scoff at the spiritual is not surprising. It’s what was done to the founder of my faith why should I expect any better.
What is surprising is that you’d think that scoffing and mockery will be convincing to anyone who is not already convinced.
If you want to persuade a better approach would be to deal with the actual arguments of your opponents.
peace
fifth,
Yes, I did. However you don’t seem to have caught it, or else are pretending not to have done so.
Here’s the passage in context:
Read for comprehension, fifth.
fifth, to Glen:
He isn’t making an argument, fifth. He’s simply mocking yours.
Oh right, you baptize your idiocy as “the spiritual” and I’m supposed to treat it with kid gloves.
Sorry, it’s appallingly stupid and deserving of ridicule. Don’t be ridiculous while demanding that people not find you to be ridiculous.
Glen Davidson
I did.
Apparently you did not the section is a continuous whole there are not verse divisions in the original .
You just saw the words “strike” and “slave” in one section and thought you could score some points with the peanut gallery and hoped no one would know the context.
peace
no one is asking for kid gloves. Actually dealing with the argument on the other hand would be nice.
Calling something ridiculous does not make it ridiculous.
And just because you think an argument is ridiculous does not mean it’s ridiculous.
It might mean that you are incapable of understanding it. Which is after all the point.
peace
PS if anyone here is not obsessed with a petty schoolyard vendetta against all things spiritual there is actually an interesting discussion in the species thread that I think even a natural man can understand
It’s not possible to discuss an “interpretation” that abandons all reasonable meanings of the words. You want to demand the impossible, because you think your mindless twaddle should be treated as if it counts as meaningful.
You get the mockery that you have earned. Quit insulting others’ intelligence, I won’t treat your tripe as anything but the worthless drivel that it in fact is.
Glen Davidson
fifth,
The separation into verses is irrelevant. Where did you get the idea that I thought otherwise?
I think you know exactly what I’m saying here, but let’s leave no room for doubt. Let me spell it out for you.
The “eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth” stuff — which is already barbaric — doesn’t apply in the case of the slave. It applies in the case of the two men fighting:
On the other hand, when slaves are involved, this “eye for an eye” business goes out the window. The slaveholder merely has to let the slave go free:
Beat your slaves to within an inch of their lives if you want. Just be careful not to put out an eye or knock out a tooth. As long as the slaves survive a day or two, you’re off scot free. The slaves are your property, after all.
You call that the word of an omniscient, omnipotent, perfectly loving God?
You should be ashamed of yourself, fifth.
fifth,
Don’t forget to answer the questions I raised:
1. If God meant what you say he meant, why didn’t he write what he meant?
2. Was he really too inept to see that his words would be taken as written by Jews and Christians lacking your “special” gifts?
3. What about all of the Biblical scholars who think that Exodus 21:20-21 means what it says? Are they all idiots lacking the gifts of spiritual discernment?
4. How did you, with your superior spiritual understanding, decide that Exodus 21 should not be taken as written, when the preceding and subsequent chapters (including the ten commandments!) clearly are meant to be taken that way?
Kantian Naturalist,
This pretty much sums up the bullshit of trying to avoid spiritualism, whilst still trying to find meaning in existence.
“Well, um, nature, see, its like, we are a part of it, like we are all connected by like this world, its complex and fertile man. WE are all one in this cosmic realm of realism. Its like, there is a spirit within nature, but its not a spirit, not like spirit spirit, but there is this connection, but we are not actually connected, because my atoms, and your atoms are part of this natural world of living, of being. Nature is everywhere, you know? Grace is so good because life is totally part of our being. Love is the whole holy unitary universe. Man, quit mooching the vape stick bro.”
Robin,
Yea, it just IS man. Right on, you know!
He did write what he meant. Your inability to understand his meaning is not a reflection on his abilities or intent.
No his message is only to those with the spirit. The inability of those with out the spirit to understand is part of the judgment that is on them
quote:
So the LORD’s word to them will sound like meaningless gibberish, senseless babbling, a syllable here, a syllable there. As a result, they will fall on their backsides when they try to walk, and be injured, ensnared, and captured. Isa 13:10 NET
end quote:
I know of no living believing Biblical scholar who think that Exodus 21:20-21 means that God endorses slavery. If you have evidence that such a creature exists put up or shut up.
Exodus 21 should be taken as written.
Taken as written it does not mean what you claim it means
peace
I agree.
That is not what I’m offering. I’m offering the strait forward understanding of the text understood by anyone with a mind that is unbiased against God.
Are you actually claiming that it is impossible for spiritual meaning to be hidden from those with out the spirit.
Good luck proving that claim.
let’s see if Patrick shows up to demand you do so. I won’t hold my breath
peace
Not even close.
I’m saying that a decent person would discuss things according to shared meaning, as language exists to do. Language does not exist for you to make up any meaning and then to claim that it’s true because you’re “spiritual” and above those who don’t trash the meanings of words to suit their purposes. You are not a superior being in the least, in fact you’re a rather ignorant, highly opinionated, and arrogant person.
Good luck getting your strawman to be what matters.
Why don’t you deal decently with others? You don’t get to make up meanings and rules to fit your prejudices.
Grow up.
Glen Davidson
when it comes to spiritual things there can be no “shared meaning” between believers and nonbelievers.
If you want to discuss things that have meanings we share you need to discuss nonspritual things.
Here is your chance to prove it
Why don’t you try and paraphrase and repeat back what you think I’m saying that the text means. You claim it’s ridiculous Can you even articulate it?
It’s not a rule it’s just Patrick’s M.O. .
At least when dealing with anyone who would dare to profess Christ. With his fellow travelers not so much
I never claimed to be superior in any way in fact just the opposite
quote:
But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God.
(1Co 1:27-29)
end quote:
I do apologize if I come across as arrogant it’s not my intent at all.
I do tend to get a little testy when I encounter those who would belittle and denigrate and mock my Lord and Savior. Especially those who do so from a position of willful incomprehension.
I’ll make a deal, I won’t dwell on the noetic difference between Christians and non-Christians if you tone down on the mockery when it comes to the things I hold most sacred.
peace
AFAIK According to your worldview Language exists only to facilitate the propagation of genes. I don’t see how you can claim that truth or lack thereof has anything to do with it.
peace
Reformed theologian and pastor, Douglas Wilson, perhaps?
fifth,
You are the one who is belittling God by blaming him for the Bible.
You actually think that God, the all-knowing, almighty, and perfectly loving creator of the universe, wrote Exodus 21:20-21.
And this:
Suppose God actually exists, and on the day of judgment he asks you:
How will you respond? What will you say to justify an insult of that magnitude?
God meant cut off her hand spiritually!
Woodbine:
Heh.
What do you think he meant, fifth?
John Wesley, the founder of the Methodist Church, on Exodus 21:20-21:
fifth,
Explain to us how John Wesley was an idiot lacking spiritual understanding who stupidly took the Bible at its word; and how you, the great FifthMonarchyMan, know better than Wesley and can divine the secret meaning of the passage, which contradicts the actual words.
I think you’re ashamed of Exodus 21:20-21, as you should be. But you can’t bear to admit that the Bible isn’t God’s word, so you pretend against all evidence that the passage means something other than what it plainly says. You’ll undoubtedly try the same stunt with the Deuteronomy verse.
It’s pitiful. Given a choice, Christian inerrantists would rather insult God by blaming him for the Bible than exonerate him by admitting that the Bible was written by mere humans. They’re bibliolaters.
Glen, mocking fifth:
It occurs to me that some of our audience — particularly the young’uns — might not get the reference.
If so, click here for enlightenment.
That is a logical possibility, not an assumption. You frequently complain about people assuming that it is false, it would be hypocritical to insist that we assume it is true. Its truth or falsity should be determined based on evidence and reason, not assumptions.
No, if it’s possible that the bible is false then it is possible that Christianity is false. Simply accepting the logical possibility that the bible is false is not an explicit assumption about the truth of Christianity.
Despite your claim otherwise, you have confirmed my prediction. You seem incapable of understanding that neither the truth nor the falsity of Christianity is being assumed. The bias is all yours — try to park your priors by the door.
Yet your god never told them “Thou shalt not enslave.” in the first place. Everything he did say sanctioned slavery.
When you ignore the plain meaning of the words sanctioning slavery in your own bible, there’s no argument to address.
When you trivialize slavery as “temporary and local”, there is no argument to address.
When you fail to address the numerous contradictions in the bible, there is no argument to address.
I don’t see anyone mocking and scoffing at the spiritual, I see them mocking and scoffing at your positions. Since those range from the ridiculous to the offensive, such a response is well deserved.
Actually, you’re the one making the positive claim that there is a spiritual meaning hidden to those without some (unevidenced) sensus divinitatus. Until you support that, the plain meaning of the words of your bible demonstrates that it sanctions slavery.