Christianity and Slavery

As many of us probably know, the Bible has several passages regarding slavery in both the Old and New Testaments. There's stuff in there about how hard you can beat disobedient slaves, about the status of a slave's wife and children and there are various other instructions pertaining to the treatment of slaves. Interestingly enough, the Bible never condmens the institution of slavery. For this reason, it's not surprising that many people have justified the practice of slavery using the Bible.

Most people today who identify themselves as Christian claim to be against slavery and that the Bible supports the position that slavery is an extremely evil practice. But do they have a solid foundation to claim this? The Bible condemns various "evils" including homosexuality. There are plenty of things that the Bible says are wrong....like stealing, murdering, disbelieving in God etc. But I find it odd that nowhere does the Bible say that the institution of slavery should be abolished.

The "that's only in the Old Testament" cop-out doesn't work here either. According to the NT, Jesus encountered slaves, but he didn't seem to be too outraged. The Bible does advise owners to treat slaves kindly, but of course treating a person nicely does not make up for the evil of making another human being one's own property and subjecting him to forced servitude. There are of course parts of the Bible that also instruct people to treat slaves with what can only be described as extreme cruelty.

Here's one of the typical arguments I hear from Christians who claim to be against slavery:

http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-slavery.html

Does the Bible condone slavery?





Question: "Does the Bible condone slavery?”



Answer: The Bible does not specifically condemn the practice of slavery. It gives instructions on how slaves should be treated (Deuteronomy 15:12-15; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1), but does not outlaw the practice altogether. Many see this as the Bible condoning all forms of slavery. What many people don’t understand is that slavery in the Bible times is completely different from the slavery that was practiced in the United States in the 1700’s and 1800’s. The slavery in the Bible was not based on race at all. People were not enslaved because of their nationality or the color of their skin. In Bible times, slavery was more of a social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their family. In New Testament times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, even politicians were slaves of someone else for one reason or another. Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their master.



The slavery of the 1700’s and 1800’s was based on skin color. Black people were considered slaves because of their nationality – most slave owners truly believed black people to be “inferior human beings” to white people. This is similar to the slavery the Jews experienced when they were in Egypt. The Jews were slaves, not by choice, but because they were Jews (Exodus 13:14). The plagues God poured out on Egypt demonstrate how God feels about racial slavery (Exodus 7-11). So, yes, the Bible does condone slavery. However, the slavery the Bible allowed for in no way resembled the racial slavery that plagued our world in the past few centuries.

The problem with this argument is that slavery is still wrong even if it's not based on skin color. Would the author agree with white people enslaving other white people? A "willful slave" is an oxymoron. By definition, a slave is forced into servitude against his/her will.

It is possible for a "master" to provide for a person without making him/her his personal property. It happens all the time even in the modern world. I know that in many third world countries, parents who cannot afford to raise their children give them to families who provide them with food, shelter, clothes and money in exchange for help with running the household. Even in developed countries, people hire live-in maids and other kinds of domestic helpers.

It also leads to the question of why the Bible does not specifically condemn the practice of slavery. Even if what the Bible is referring to is not really the forcing of a person into servitude (in which case it would not be slavery), surely slavery did exist before and during Biblical times. The Bible condemns homosexuality and the coveting of another's wife, but yet remains silent on slavery? I think it's more reasonable to think that the Bible doesn't condemn slavery because it actually endorses it.

As many of us probably know, the Bible has several passages regarding slavery in both the Old and New Testaments. There's stuff in there about how hard you can beat disobedient slaves, about the status of a slave's wife and children and there are various other instructions pertaining to the treatment of slaves. Interestingly enough, the Bible never condmens the institution of slavery. For this reason, it's not surprising that many people have justified the practice of slavery using the Bible.

Most people today who identify themselves as Christian claim to be against slavery and that the Bible supports the position that slavery is an extremely evil practice. But do they have a solid foundation to claim this? The Bible condemns various "evils" including homosexuality. There are plenty of things that the Bible says are wrong....like stealing, murdering, disbelieving in God etc. But I find it odd that nowhere does the Bible say that the institution of slavery should be abolished.

The "that's only in the Old Testament" cop-out doesn't work here either. According to the NT, Jesus encountered slaves, but he didn't seem to be too outraged. The Bible does advise owners to treat slaves kindly, but of course treating a person nicely does not make up for the evil of making another human being one's own property and subjecting him to forced servitude. There are of course parts of the Bible that also instruct people to treat slaves with what can only be described as extreme cruelty.

Here's one of the typical arguments I hear from Christians who claim to be against slavery:

http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-slavery.html

Does the Bible condone slavery?





Question: "Does the Bible condone slavery?”



Answer: The Bible does not specifically condemn the practice of slavery. It gives instructions on how slaves should be treated (Deuteronomy 15:12-15; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1), but does not outlaw the practice altogether. Many see this as the Bible condoning all forms of slavery. What many people don’t understand is that slavery in the Bible times is completely different from the slavery that was practiced in the United States in the 1700’s and 1800’s. The slavery in the Bible was not based on race at all. People were not enslaved because of their nationality or the color of their skin. In Bible times, slavery was more of a social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their family. In New Testament times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, even politicians were slaves of someone else for one reason or another. Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their master.



The slavery of the 1700’s and 1800’s was based on skin color. Black people were considered slaves because of their nationality – most slave owners truly believed black people to be “inferior human beings” to white people. This is similar to the slavery the Jews experienced when they were in Egypt. The Jews were slaves, not by choice, but because they were Jews (Exodus 13:14). The plagues God poured out on Egypt demonstrate how God feels about racial slavery (Exodus 7-11). So, yes, the Bible does condone slavery. However, the slavery the Bible allowed for in no way resembled the racial slavery that plagued our world in the past few centuries.

The problem with this argument is that slavery is still wrong even if it's not based on skin color. Would the author agree with white people enslaving other white people? A "willful slave" is an oxymoron. By definition, a slave is forced into servitude against his/her will.

It is possible for a "master" to provide for a person without making him/her his personal property. It happens all the time even in the modern world. I know that in many third world countries, parents who cannot afford to raise their children give them to families who provide them with food, shelter, clothes and money in exchange for help with running the household. Even in developed countries, people hire live-in maids and other kinds of domestic helpers.

It also leads to the question of why the Bible does not specifically condemn the practice of slavery. Even if what the Bible is referring to is not really the forcing of a person into servitude (in which case it would not be slavery), surely slavery did exist before and during Biblical times. The Bible condemns homosexuality and the coveting of another's wife, but yet remains silent on slavery? I think it's more reasonable to think that the Bible doesn't condemn slavery because it actually endorses it.

[calpurnpiso]

Slavery is essential in true Christianity, specially when the conquered people are not of the same belief system as the self-righteous Christians. The only true Christians in the USA are the Aryan brotherhood, Phelps ministries, KKK, the white supremacy groups and the pious schizoaffective folks that call mental health clinics home sweet home, and doctors, nurses their private slaves.....:lol:

The Native americans can attest to this virtuous true Christian benevolence...:lol::lol:

[calpurnpiso]

Slavery is essential in true Christianity, specially when the conquered people are not of the same belief system as the self-righteous Christians. The only true Christians in the USA are the Aryan brotherhood, Phelps ministries, KKK, the white supremacy groups and the pious schizoaffective folks that call mental health clinics home sweet home, and doctors, nurses their private slaves.....:lol:

The Native americans can attest to this virtuous true Christian benevolence...:lol::lol:

A benevolent God who supposedly knows everything couldn’t condemn slavery then and cannot condemn slavery now.

A benevolent God who supposedly knows everything couldn’t condemn slavery then and cannot condemn slavery now.

[Philboid Studge]

Many Abolitionists were Christ-psychos -- Quakers, Methodists, Baptists ... maybe a few others. How did they resolve the Biblical incongruities? (I think the Abos also thought of themselves as 'Chosen People' -- normally a concept that really puts a hair up my crack, but in this case I'll give them a pass. This amplifies my question: If they thought there were actually chosen by God to end slavery, then what of the Bible?)

Slavery was common during the time and place of ancient Palestine, Egypt, and Mesopotamia. It is no surprise that slavery would not be condemned in the Bible. The same is true in the Qur'an. Essentially, slavery was not condemned because it was a part of the culture of "the People of Book." A religion does not spread very well if it condemns common practices of society.

myst7426 wrote

Slavery was common during the time and place of ancient Palestine, Egypt, and Mesopotamia. It is no surprise that slavery would not be condemned in the Bible. The same is true in the Qur'an. Essentially, slavery was not condemned because it was a part of the culture of "the People of Book." A religion does not spread very well if it condemns common practices of society.

This is a major blow to Christians' claim that the Bible is a timeless book and that it is a universal moral code.

Metman07 wrote

This is a major blow to Christians' claim that the Bible is a timeless book and that it is a universal moral code.

I guess so. But they typical response is: the Bible is the word of God, not a product and reflection of the culture.

myst7426 wrote

I guess so. But they typical response is: the Bible is the word of God, not a product and reflection of the culture.

Exactly....but most Christian apologists I've heard have said that God did not condemn slavery in the Bible for the reason that slavery was widely practiced in the cultures in which He attempted to introduce Christianity. But what are the implications of this argument? One of them is that God is like a politician....he compromises on some of his important values in order to gain popularity. This means that the Bible IS a product and reflection of the culture.

[The Judge]

Metman07 wrote

A "willful slave" is an oxymoron

I would agree with this statement in all cases except that which involves the paraphilia of submisiveness e.g. a submissive man visiting a female dominatrix.

[The Judge]

Just occureed to me, following a thread which focused on attitudes towards homosexuality recently, any members of the gay/lesbian/bi community know of a gay equivalent to the term "dominatrix?" as I've no reason to suspect that the same domination/submission power sex fantasies don't occur outside the domain of heterosexuality...

Edited cos I forgot the all important word "don't"...D'OH!

Actually, in some cases slaves were treated extremely well. They recieved an allowance and were even considered a part of the family. But this example is rare. But I would think that if a slave is treated so well that he really would be better off working for his master than being free to do whatever he wants, therefore, he would be a willing slave.

[calpurnpiso]

myst7426 wrote

Actually, in some cases slaves were treated extremely well. They recieved an allowance and were even considered a part of the family. But this example is rare. But I would think that if a slave is treated so well that he really would be better off working for his master than being free to do whatever he wants, therefore, he would be a willing slave.

Well, in Roman times they were treated very well, specially if they were Greek and educated. Many reached high places in Government. This can be seen in many examples of Roman life in the time capsule cities of Pompeii, Herculaneum, Oplontis and Stabiae. A festival every slave in the Roman EMpire love was the Saturnalia and following Opalia where they were treated as equals, could exchange clothes with their masters, enjoy good meals and merriment.

The retards ( and by now everyone in this forum knows who I'm refering to) would, in typical willfull ignorance and delusional stupor, replace this awesome festival with prudish unnatural behavior void of morality calling it Christmas. The nerve, the retards, still exchange gifts, light candles, place offering on the sacred tree ( now a pine), wear the Pylum ( red Santa hat) and go worship the WRONG laughable god............:lol: :)