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.
When the things you hold most sacred cause you to trivialize slavery as “temporary and local”, less worthy of the attention of your god than women’s menstrual cycles, they deserve to be mocked at the very least.
That’s gonna leave a mark!
FMM, this is embarrassing.
Nice job being a condescending jerk to someone who was trying to share his worldview. Last time I’ll try being respectful to you.
Yes he did.
If he did not you would not know it is wrong to enslave.
Or do you actually think that the only way God can speak is through the written word given to an ancient tribe of shepherds?
You have constructed quite a strawman there Patrick. If God was like you think he is I would reject him too.
If they did I would agree, But they don’t so I don’t.
The problem is you think the uncleanlyness is about menstrual cycles when in fact it’s about all sin including slavery. So it’s not that slavery is less important but that it is sin
peace
No, he did not. Here, again, are the verses you are trying so desperately to pretend do not exist:
Exodus
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.
“He is his money.” That is a clear sanction of slavery.
I consider it wrong based on empathy for others. I would not be enslaved, so I would not enslave. No gods required.
Direct quotes from your scriptures are not straw men. Direct quotes from you trivializing slavery as “temporary and local” are not either.
Park your priors at the door and simply admit that the bible is wrong where it sanctions slavery. That would demonstrate far more decency than you have shown thus far in your frantic attempts to protect your holy book.
They very clearly do, on any plain reading of the text. The only way to avoid that conclusion is willful rejection of your god’s words. I wonder what it will think of such hubris.
Real slavery should not be trivialized as “temporary and local”, but you have done so in an attempt to explain the evil sanctioned in your old book.
quote:
“I am certainly not wishing for a return to slavery. I am profoundly grateful that chattel slavery no longer exists in our nation. Let there be no mistake here–the logic of the Christian gospel is contradictory to the institution of slavery generally, and as the gospel of salvation progresses through history, one of the necessary results is the gradual eradication of all slavery. Jesus Christ really is the ultimate Jubilee”
end quote:
Doug Wilson
from here
https://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/thabitianyabwile/2013/03/13/doug-wilsons-views-on-race-racism-slavery-and-the-bible/
wanna try again?
peace
Kantian Naturalist,
Reading his OPs would have given you a measure of him.
Abraham Lincoln said that long before you were born he got it from Jesus.
Try as you might you can’t escape the Golden rule
peace
The Golden Rule predates the alleged life of Jesus by several millennia at least.
You seem to manage quite well when you ignore the evil of slavery, sanctioned by your bible, as “temporary and local”.
Once again if the bible sanctioned slavery it would be wrong.
It does not as evidenced by the only authoritative interpreter of it’s meaning
quote:
And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”
(Mat 22:37-40)
end quote:
once again
In order to demonstrate that the Bible endorses slavery you must either
1) demonstrate that Jesus did not know what it meant
2) demonstrate that Slavery is consistent with loving your neighbor as yourself.
Attempts to poison the well don’t count as argument.
It’s clear what you need to do.
Good luck
peace
Plugging your ears and stomping your feet does not make the clear meaning of the words go away.
No, one simply needs to quote the passages from the bible that clearly sanction slavery. That has been done repeatedly. The evidence is clear, you just don’t want to accept it because of your beliefs.
If they so clearly sanctioned slavery why did Jesus not see it?
Do you think he is stupid?
peace
According to Patrick, Jews ought to be the leading holder of slaves.
Sure, but it’s merely a red herring and boring. That there exist differences of opinion between theologians is hardly new or exciting; but since you asked….
Doug Wilson….
…..
…..
From here….
http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/slavery/southern_slavery_as_it_was.htm
http://www.tomandrodna.com/notonthepalouse/Documents/060175768QRAsouthern_slavery_as_it_was.pdf
Another issue crops up when one looks at the verse immediately prior to Exodus 21:20-21.
If ‘Love thy Brother as Yourself’ really is the whole of the law then how does one account for this….
Here we learn a person who has committed assault upon another must pay reparations.
However in Exodus 20-21 no such reparations are required. This is not some mere oversight – the reason for this discrepancy is quite pointedly given – for he is your property.
How does this blatant double standard fit in with the Gospel?
Given the complete lack of contemporary evidence, I think it’s not impossible that he never existed.
That aside, the excerpts quoted from Exodus and other books clearly demonstrate the bible sanctioning slavery. There are instructions on how to acquire slaves and how to treat slaves. Even the new testament contains passages that sanction the practice, including:
1 Corinthians 7:21-22
Ephesians 6:5
Colossians 3:22
Colossians 4:1
1 Timothy 6:1-5
Titus 2:9-10
1 Peter 2:18
You can’t just point to a part that doesn’t and claim the other passages don’t exist.
I enjoy watching fifth fight the Bible while simultaneously trying to embrace it as God’s inerrant word. A smarter person’s head would have exploded from the cognitive dissonance, but fifth just keeps on chugging.
As Woodbine points out, fifth’s “interpretation” of Exodus 21:10-21 is embarrassingly bad. I wonder if he’d like to compound the embarrassment by interpreting the Deuteronomy passage for us:
Fifth, your exceptional spiritual gifts are too precious not to be shared. Please tell us what God really meant there, since the passage portrays him as a total dick.
According to keiths, Jews ought to be the leading holder of slaves.
Do you think the folks who invented the Jesus myth were stupid?
Do you think that the folks who wrote and compiled the NT were stupid then?
You are not being clear in your answer.
It’s obvious that the person who penned Mathew 22 did not think that the Scriptures sanctioned slavery. Why do you think he (or she) was so stupid?
What about the folks who decided to include this passage in the cannon were they clueless as to it’s meaning as well?
What about the unanimity of believing scholars are all of them imbeciles? Why do only those who deny the historicity and accuracy of the Bible understand what it means?
peace
You know that I never met a Christian who thinks that the Bible sanctions slavery but I know many Muslims who think that the Quran and the hadith condone slavery.
Why is it that pious Muslims are smart and faithful Christian stupid in your opinion?
Is there something about the Bible and not the Quran that keeps believers from joyfully embracing it’s obvious true evil?
Would you be happy if Christians were more like faithful Muslims in this regard?
peace
You didn’t live in the pre-Civil War south.
Do you think atheist’s have a higher regard for accuracy of the Quran than the Bible?
But if the Quran is the Word of God, it is true by definition
Some Muslims are smart ,some are stupid. Same for atheists, same for Christians. You seem to be slipping over the edge ,fifth.
If the Quran is the Word of God it is true by definition. It’s believers believe that God is all powerful He can reveal the truth in a way they have no doubt. I expect.
Why would an atheist prefer one religion over another?
peace
Personally I don’t think atheists have a high regard for accuracy of either text.
Mostly the ones I’ve met just have a beef with Christianity and are willing to do what ever it takes to scratch that itch.
Of course. But it’s not the word of God according to it’s own criteria
not according to Patrick and his crew
He is claiming that I don’t see the obvious meaning of the text. Every believer I know is apparently subject to this same mental deficiency. So is Jesus and his disciples and earliest followers.
Only the folks who reject the historicity and accuracy of the Bible seem to have the mental ability to see that it clearly condones slavery. I want to understand why he thinks this is the case.
peace
Perhaps because Islam condones slavery and Christianity does not. Maybe preventing slavery is not a priority for Atheists?
Perhaps what is really important to atheists it trying to finally burn down that strawman they constructed when they were small kids
peace
fifth,
Please slake our spiritual thirst and tell us what God really meant here:
You seem to be avoiding the question, but that surely can’t be your intent, since you are proud of God’s word and love sharing it with others. Right?
I doubt this comes as news to anyone here, but minds like FMM’s actually thrive on dissonance. They have been immunized against reason with a meme that tells them that doubt is a symptom of temptation by Satan. The more an idea threatens their beliefs, the more that is taken as evidence that their belief is correct. Satan uses his strongest arguments against the ideas he fears the most.
It’s an almost foolproof formula for maintaining faith in those who lack self awareness or empathy.
Is that another way to say we Christians are stupid?
Why do you think that everyone except you and your friends are so mentally challenged? Is it a product of our inferior genes?
Does your superior mental acuity come with any additional responsibility when it comes to us mental midgets?
As you know I would attribute the difference in our readings of the text to be the result of spiritual things.
It must be so much more satisfying to attribute it instead to mental contrast
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
QED.
fifth,
Some people are naturally stupid while others have to work at it.
Either way, it’s stupid to think that the Bible is the inerrant word of an omniscient, omnipotent, perfectly loving deity.
Show her no pity.
fifth,
A woman defends her husband. This is what God demands, according to your “holy” book:
I highly recommend this book. It explains how the antislavery message of the Bible and Christianity were co-opted and corrupted by the powers that be in the antebellum south.
check it out
http://atheism.about.com/od/bookreviews/fr/SouthCross.htm
peace
fifth,
Tell us what God meant when he wrote “you shall cut off her hand.”
Tell us what he meant when he said “Show her no pity.”
Then take another look at that photo.
peace? I don’t think so.
So was Jesus naturally stupid or did he have to work at it?
We know that he disagreed with your understanding of the text and his disagreement must be the result of his stupidity.
So which is it natural or willful?
peace
first tell us who exactly the “her” was? So far I haven’t heard anything to demonstrate that you understand who is in view here.
Once we have established that you understand who the command was addressed to then we can discuss it’s meaning.
peace
fifth,
Quit stalling.
You’re the one who claims special powers of “spiritual discernment”. Use them.
Tell us what God meant when he wrote “you shall cut off her hand.”
Tell us what he meant when he said “Show her no pity.”
Then take another look at that photo.
I’m beginning to wonder if “spiritual discernment” means something like “frantic Googling.”
I’m not staling I’m attempting to discern what you know about the text.
He meant that it was impossible to apply the standard of reciprocal eye for an eye punishment for a women who crushes a man’s genitals because she had no external genitals to crush.
quote:
Your eye shall not pity. It shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.
(Deu 19:21)
end quote:
Of course that punishment was only relevant to those few folks who lived in the ancient pre-exile nation of Israel (Mathew 5:38-39)
peace
That’s your defense?
God commands a horrific, barbaric and unjust punishment, and your “defense” is to say that it only applied to “those few folks” who had the misfortune of living among God’s “chosen” people back then?
That’s as despicable as your rationalization of slavery as only “temporary and local”. When religion starts leaching the decency out of your soul (I mean, I hope you aren’t naturally like this), it’s high time to ditch it and find something better.
How did it get to the point where you are defending evil by arguing “Well, it only affected a few folks”? What is wrong with you, fifth?
And have you noticed that you’ve completely undermined your “love thy neighbor” defense?
You told us that God couldn’t possibly have condoned slavery because that would have been incompatible with his “love thy neighbor” commandment.
So enslaving someone isn’t “loving thy neighbor”, but cutting off her hand — for the “crime” of defending her husband — is?
You are the Worst Apologist Ever, fifth. Bottom of the barrel.
fifth,
You finally admitted that the passage means what it says — what choice did you have? — but even then you managed to be dishonest about it.
You wrote:
Where did the word “crush” come from? You made it up, of course. Not one of the 51 English translations on the Bible Gateway website says anything about “crushing”. They all refer to “seizing”, “grabbing”, “taking by”, but absolutely nothing about “crushing” or anything remotely similar.
For example, here’s how the International Children’s Bible (!) describes it for the little tykes:
Nice. Remember, God loves everyone, kiddies! You can rest assured that the woman’s hand was cut off in the most loving way possible, and that she was beaming in gratitude throughout the procedure.
So you, fifthmonarchyman, are so ashamed of the “inerrant word of God” (and you should be!) that you felt compelled to edit it to make it ever so slightly more palatable. The bitch deserved to have her hand cut off — she crushed his genitals, after all!
Except, no, she didn’t. You just made that up because you are ashamed of the passage and wanted to make excuses for God.
There you have it, folks. You, too, can be a Christian inerrantist. Just swallow the dogma blindly, turn off your brain, throw decency out the window, and ask no questions. Then lie about what the Bible says because you are so ashamed of it.
What’s not to like?
I want to christen FMM the ‘Clouseau of Apologetics‘ but unfortunately Jason Gastrich (anyone remember him?) earned that moniker way back when he tried his hand at debating Dan Barker.
Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.
Love thy neighbour as yourself.
If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death.
Love thy neighbour as yourself.
All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offence.
Love thy neighbour as yourself.
….etc
FMM, when you woke up this morning did you ever imagine you’d find yourself defending the amputation of women’s hands?
Interesting that god does not care who started the fight.
1) Do you have any evidence that anyone ever got their hand cut off?
2) Defending your husband is not the crime here crushing someones genitals is?
3) The principle to follow is do not resist an evil person
4) These OC commands (all of them) were issued to deter and restrain the evil of a rebellious people because the people of the OC did not love their neighbor. They are not a way to make you love your neighbor
5) the greater spiritual message is
quote:
For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you.
(Mat 7:2)
end quote:
6) the fact that you don’t see these obvious facts is proof that Bible study with an apostate is fruitless except to illustrate your bias.
I’m not an Apologist when it comes to God’s word
quote:
“The Word of God is like a lion. You don’t have to defend a lion. All you have to do is let the lion loose, and the lion will defend itself.”
end quote:
Charles Spurgeon
peace
From the review “the powers that be” were evangelical Christians. Christians interpreting the Bible in a way that reflected the culture way they were in. Never claimed otherwise.
If the bible had simply and unambiguously said slavery was bad it would have been really quite hard to corrupt that message. Little room for interpretation with a plain message. Especially if Jesus had had one of those chats with his apostles about it to reinforce the message.
“What, all slavery Jesus? Even for other races then us? Even when we capture them in war?
Yes, it’s all bad m’kay.”
Except the evidence is that Christians were fully involved in the slave trade and the Bible was read to condone slavery by Christians not atheists.
No idea what you mean
peace
So now it’s come down to obscure Hebrew word studies. Do you really need to stoop this low to scratch the “I hate God” itch ?
The Hebrew word is châzaq it is used 290 times in the OT only 9 times it is translated “take” In the KJV.
Most of the time it’s translated “strong” that should give you an idea of what kind of grip we are talking about it’s also translated “prevail”.
Here it is in another passage to give you an idea of the flavor of the meaning of term.
So David châzaq over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone, and smote the Philistine, and slew him; but there was no sword in the hand of David.
1st sam 17:50
and another
For it was of the LORD to châzaq their hearts, that they should come against Israel in battle, that he might destroy them utterly, and that they might have no favour, but that he might destroy them, as the LORD commanded Moses.
Joshua 11:20
and another
And I went out after him, and smote him, and delivered it out of his mouth: and when he arose against me, I châzaq him by his beard, and smote him, and slew him.
1st sam 17:35
and another
And they châzaq every one his fellow by the head, and thrust his sword in his fellow’s side; so they fell down together: wherefore that place was called Helkathhazzurim, which is in Gibeon.
2nd Sam 2:16
there is more where that came from but you get the point
peace