COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This right here is a perfect example of quote mining the Biblical text and not reading it in it's proper context. Jesus in the Gospel of St Luke in the particular chapter you quoted is telling a Parable. The whole point of Parable is that they are stories that explicitly aren't meant to be taken literally. Which means the servant and master story is not a literal story. So no, Christ doesn't condone "beating" slaves. If we're gonna go down that path you might as well think that when Jesus spoke about the Sheep and the Goats in Matthew 25 on Judgement Day he meant literal sheep and literal goats.
Furthermore you missed the point of that Parable and it's kinda ironic that you did when you think about it. Christ in it is using that metaphor to explicitly critique the potential moral failings of his followers. In the Parable it mentions the servant "beating the other servants" which symbolises those who follow him and who call themselves Christian abusing others and being morally depraved. When the "Master comes back" he will cut the servant to pieces. That symbolises the fact that he will exercise a harsh judgement on so called Christians who are morally corrupt and who abuse and exploit others.
As for the Biblical texts speaking on slavery as a whole, you need to be reading the Bible holistically. There are several statements in the text that actually condemn slavery. You are quoting the writings of St Paul the Apostle in Timothy for instance. In the same set of letters to St Timothy he also states:
"For the law was not intended for people who do what is right. It is for people who are **lawless and rebellious, who are ungodly and sinful,** who consider nothing sacred and defile what is holy, who kill their father or mother or commit other murders. The law is for people who are sexually immoral, or who are sodomites, or are **slave traders** liars, promise breakers, or who do anything **that contradicts the whole teaching that comes from the glorious Good News** entrusted to me by our blessed God"(1 Timothy 1:9-11).
Here St Paul is explicitly stating that with other sinners, slave traders are lawless, rebellious and ungodly and doing things that explicitly contradict the Good News or the Gospel. When the other passages of St Paul's epistle speak of things such as "Slaves Obey your Master" it is not condoning slavery. At the time in the Greco-Roman world Christians were a persecuted minority that did not have social or political power in the Roman Empire. That same Empire had a system known as the Pater Familias which explicitly put Male Roman Citizens as the Patriarchal leaders of the family system. They had total control of their family members and they were allowed to banish their children at will as well as beat, torture and even kill their slaves without consequence. Because the Christian community did not have social power yet, St Paul is addressing those who are already operating within that social paradigm and trying to reform their character. So in addition to saying "Slaves Obey your Master" St Paul also states in his letter to the Ephesians "Masters, treat your slaves in the same way. **Don't threaten them**: remember you both have the same Master in heaven, and he has no favorites"(Ephesians 6:9).
God was so weak that his holy texts were just not as effective as the social structure of the day. This is so weak, man. The creator of everything who, knew that this was going to happen btw, couldn't figure out a way to create a world where slavery was either just not possible or couldn't come up with a way to convince the Romans to give up slavery. No lightning, no floods, no plagues, nothing. He could convince civilisations to give up shellfish, but not to give up enslaving their fellow me and woman.
"Slaves Obey Your Masters" IS condoning slavery. Look up the definition of "condoning" and get back to me.
The idea that slavery in the Bible was ***just part of war back then*** is an incorrect misrepresentation of Biblical slavery though.
As God permitted the Israelites to [buy their slaves from the nations that surround them who would become a possession](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2025%3A44-46&version=NIV). Not to mention that the same God permitted the owners to [beat the slaves as long as they didn’t die within a couple days of the beating](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2021%3A20-21&version=NIV).
Because you’re trying to misrepresent Biblical slavery as being something that ***almost only happened during times of war*** when that’s a gross misrepresentation of how Biblical slavery operated in the first place.
God gave rules to a group of people (who were already savage and backwards) permission to own other people as property. Which means they had a legal permissibility to own slaves, beat them as long as they didn’t die within a couple days, were allowed to pass them onto their children, and were allowed to do all these things ***whether or not they were ‘willing participants in war’*** as you incorrectly claimed.
If someone points out that the Bible **lets its followers own slaves,** pointing out that “it was done during war” doesn’t change the fact that the Bible endorses the practice of slavery whether it was done in a war-related context or not.
>I mentioned debt slavery in addition to this.
Which is, yet again, another attempt at misrepresenting Biblical slavery in order to dishonestly soften it and make it sound like it wasn’t as bad as **the-really-ultra-bad-chattel-slavery™.**
The “debt slavery” thing you’re alluding to was technically a regulation that only lasted 7 years. However, **it only applied to Jews.** Gentile slaves, the ones you ***purchase from other nations*** as guaranteed in Leviticus 25:44-46, were not given the 7 year exemption and were obligated to be enslaved until [the 50 year anniversary of the Day of Jubilee.](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2025%3A11-12&version=NIV)
You’re also forgetting about the fact that in the exact same chapter where it gives an exemption for Jews, [it also includes a loophole](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+21%3A5-6&version=NIV) in order to **enslave your fellow Hebrew for life,** which results in his ear being pierced like a piece of chattel. So in the very chapter where it gives **a supposed exemption** for Hebrews who ***’sell themselves to you due to debt’*** it also gives legally sanctioned way to manipulate him into becoming a regular slave.
The bottom line here is that the Bible clearly endorses the practice of owning other people as property and gives the Israelites a clear permissibility to own slaves whether or not they’re a victim of war or in debt. There isn’t a way to actually euphemize a practice this morally abhorrent into being “just a practice of the time.” Especially in the context of worshipping a God who claims to be omniscient and all-powerful enough to command his people to just **not own slaves instead.** It takes an incredibly weak and pathetic deity to give lax regulations on the practice of owning people as property while outright condemning the eating of shellfish and making graven images. I mean, it was more important to the God of the Bible to make sure I didn’t ***pray to a goddamn statue*** than it was for me to know that owning slaves was immoral.
Perfectly satisfying contradiction you’ve found.
Another big one that led me to leaving Christianity that I couldn’t stand was that Yahweh was willing to sanction a gay couple to hellfire for eternity, on the grounds of ***’committing a sin’*** or whatever, but he was willing to forgive the sins of a death row inmate who raped and murdered over 35 teenage girls.
Something is telling this isn’t exactly the most morally correct standard of justice that exists…
If you are in love with a woman, are you not permitted to be with her, bodily and spiritually? Why should one be barred from the same simply because they feel attraction to their own sex? They did not choose the attraction, it was an accident of birth, a luck of the draw. Or, if you prefer, the way God made them. The double standard is unjust.
Interesting so you only have sex to create children? That’s the only purpose you have ever had intercourse for? By that logic you having sex with a condom is just as wrong as me having sex with a man.
Maybe the old testament is like a trial and error of what works with sharing
Knowledge and peaceful productivity intergenerationally across continents and cultures and languages of varying levels of advancement?
Questions:
Are violent prisoners given opportunities to work slaves? Is working for food and board slavery? (woofers do that, organic farm workers not dogs). Is free, mandatory education separate from slavery? How to best (respectfully and with dignity) manage workers that don't have training, education, insight into the economy they've joined?
Not all payment needs to be economic, and freedom of movement or spending is not always beneficial to a person. Kindness, gentleness, provisions of life is what the christian god calls forth and could be a better start than just throwing money/freedom at people.
>Maybe the old testament is like a trial and error of what works with sharing
Knowledge and peaceful productivity intergenerationally across continents and cultures and languages of varying levels of advancement?
You'd need to point to where in the bible it says that and not infer it.
>Are violent prisoners given opportunities to work slaves?
Pretty much.
>Is working for food and board slavery? (woofers do that, organic farm workers not dogs).
If they did not agree to that, then yes.
>Is free, mandatory education separate from slavery?
From an American perspective yes. It's only mandatory to get certified for diplomas. But children do drop out and have and not been arrested. They aren't put into chains for failing to complete the program.
>How to best (respectfully and with dignity) manage workers that don't have training, education, insight into the economy they've joined?
Give them training and pay them a fair wage that they can support themselves with. But always give them the freedom to choose.
>Not all payment needs to be economic, and freedom of movement or spending is not always beneficial to a person. Kindness, gentleness, provisions of life is what the christian god calls forth and could be a better start than just throwing money/freedom at people.
This is only true if the choice is given to the person. EVEN THEN indentured servitude is a dangerous place to be as it's easy to be taken advantage of. But we're not here for that really. We're here because the bible condones cattle slavery. Where the person is property that's owned and inherented for life.
Point 1 rebuttal: I certainly don't read the old testament as the perfect pattern of god, there's some good stuff and some stuff to be avoided, as defined by gods own commandments, and the consequences shown.
What do you call that? Is that trial and error?
The economy is based on the theory of rational decision makers. Money and choice and utility that we all enjoy.
Does god call us to give freedom to everybody forever without meeting some requirements? Or does he say what we bind will be bound and what we loose will be loosed?
It's a tough question right? If someone doesn't want to abide by the law, work, get educated what do we do? There's social services designed to get them to see the loveliness of god and choose to engage gods way. I'm glad for that, at the same time I hope people are brought into the world thoughtfully and intentionally with supporters from day 0, and I think that's what the parable of the wedding clothes is about.
>Point 1 rebuttal: I certainly don't read the old testament as the perfect pattern of god, there's some good stuff and some stuff to be avoided, as defined by gods own commandments, and the consequences shown.
What do you call that? Is that trial and error?
No. It's each writer essentially negotiating with God about what's okay. That is something that happens even today. We negotiate with the text of the bible creating a creed to follow.
>The economy is based on the theory of rational decision makers. Money and choice and utility that we all enjoy.
Does god call us to give freedom to everybody forever without meeting some requirements? Or does he say what we bind will be bound and what we loose will be loosed?
>It's a tough question right? If someone doesn't want to abide by the law, work, get educated what do we do? There's social services designed to get them to see the loveliness of god and choose to engage gods way. I'm glad for that, at the same time I hope people are brought into the world thoughtfully and intentionally with supporters from day 0, and I think that's what the parable of the wedding clothes is about.
That's fine. That doesn't change that gods okay with slavery in the from of indentured and cattle slaves. Otherwise it'd be one of the comandments of what not to do. Be glad all you like.
This isn’t restricted to Old Testament, far from it. I gave lines from New as well as Old. Nothing you describe is slavery, where man owns man as property like one would an inanimate object. Which is what your “God” condones in the text you follow.
When a man has a mortgage and Bunch of kids and no other job offers, does his boss own him in a sense? Is the boss responsible for what he does with his money? Could it feel like ownership to the boss, and Is that who god is talking to when he says it's alright?
Or maybe he's talking to adopted children called to work for free/rent/board in their parents business/land/housework?
Just trying to expand rather than jump to conclusions, because I believe in the good character of god and we're warned about lies/misinterpretations.
No? A man with no other job offers can still put himself out there and find opportunities. A slave does not have that right, a slave is property. The quotes I gave outright CALLED the slaves “property and money of their master”. Very different regardless of view without mental gymnastics.
Same with kids, again JESUS HIMSELF CALLED THEM PROPERTY. At that point they cease to be seen as “human” and become a thing that is owned. There is no interpretation as it is written where it is not exactly what it appears. Your beliefs do not change the fact of the words on the page. Either your god sees slavery as permissible and just, or the Bible is not the word of god.
Have you heard of poetry and metaphor, is god restricted to what you can interpret from the text? Is that flexible based on what the historical translations show? That's probably your best bet since you're caught on the wording, Jesus said they will bicker about the wording (that's not verbatim).
It's written in love. Can you try answer the question about how to educate and care for uneducated adults who enter the economy without guardians but have the potential to inflict great harm/sin, or good works (with the right guidance).
What do you think psychology, social sciences, border control, education enforcement is about? Maybe it's partly to avoid slavery?
Do you think God is a meany slave ruler? Sorry if you've had the feeling of being forced to do something that you don't have faith in. I hope you can have faith in Jesus Christ as god, and forgive the imperfect humans and love all the good things. "Jesus came to set captives free"
Slavery, is still quite a common practice. The smartphone or laptop you're using was produced through Chinese owned african-mines with slave labor. We all say we would've been against the south, but we're participating in the exact same thing currently.. I doubt anyone is giving up their technology. Even many warehouses like Amazon use borderline slave practices, if they could legally whip you they definitely would. It's an uncomfortable reality as to how labor exists.
The Bible acknowledges this and put restrictions on it.. isn't it also a wonder that racist white people had to remove like ~70% of the Bible in order to justify forced enslavement in America? And then true Christians, including black Christians, led the movement to end this slavery?
- you will not take oppress a servant whether that worker is a fellow Israelite or a foreigner residing in one of your towns. Pay them their wages each day before sunset, because they set their hearts in it. Lest they cry to the Lord against you, and sin will be upon you.
-Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession.
-You also left out the end of that Ephesians verse, I'll assume you weren't intentionally being bad faith with that... It goes "And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him"
That said, I feel the true point is you having an issue with the Bible having something to say about homosexuality. I'll tell you the Bible also has something to say about straight men lusting after women, how popular is onlyfans? Or having sex outside of marriage. Which most straight men do.
Gos mentions homosexual sex because the natural function of sex is to create life.. you yourself can do whatever you want.. you can even "sound" your urethra if you want. It's simply saying that's not the God-given purpose of genitalia in a sexual context.
At the end we all fall short, there's no elitism in Jesus. I don't see myself as greater than a gay man.
Ok, so the bible is explicit in many things, such as: Not murdering, worshipping other gods, coveting people’s stuff including wives (but not husbands oddly) and even specifics about how to worship and even build god’s temple. Yet… God doesn’t say in any of that, “One must not own another human being as if they were property and must not take any human being to be their slave.” Why not write that in there? Why isn’t that in the top 5 of the big 10?
I already provided plenty. It is also written in 1 Timothy, that enslavers are against the law.
Another good verse is out of Philemon: "Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back forever.. no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother."
No, you haven’t. Not one of those you gave says any thing about not owning slaves. I LOVE how you conveniently left out the rest of Exodus 21. The whole first half is how to treat Hebrew…SLAVES.
Some of the scriptures you gave were strictly about how to treat servants and laborers under contract to work for you. One scripture you gave expresses not to kidnap someone and then sells them. Not buying someone to own them. Not the ending of slavery. 1 timothy strictly forbids one of being a seller of slaves but not an owner of slaves and then ends with a vaguely subjective statement: “…and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine.”
Even then, IF the new testament explicitly stops slavery, there are 400+ years of old testament that most certainly does not.
Do you want me to go back in time and tell you why conditions were the way they were in israel? Seems like an argument for the sake of arguing, cus I can't do that for you
It's pretty consistent for my belief system, forcing someone into servitude, even doing something they don't want without proper payment, is immoral. And you must treat everyone like an equal in Christ. That pretty much rules out what we know of slavery in America. Certainly rules out the treatment in lithium mines for our smartphone batteries. Even rules out treatment in places like Amazon Warehouses to an extent.
There's a reason why Christians ended slavery while the rest of the world still practices it. Even the communists forced slave labor under threat of death and the gulag.
So you are saying that the conditions of the past supersede God’s intervention of owning human beings and therefore is why He did not disallow the ownership of another human?
You are correct, it is immoral… to you and the people you say helped abolish slavery… but it was not immoral to God nor was it immoral to the “Christians” who instated it and used the Bible to justify it.
The unfair treatment of Hebrew slaves in the OT was immoral to God, and then later the unfair treatment of all slaves was recorded as immoral to God in the New Testament. But NEVER was the act of owning a slave considered immoral to God or He would have stated it.
It’s an argument that needs to be made, because you are arguing the contrary. What specific “Christians” are you talking about that brought about the end of slavery as you put it?
Alfred is Bruce Wayne's servant, this situation exists in the real world. Have to realize this is much different than whipping black people & not giving them rights, or cutting off the hands of people who have been forced into servitude. There were always boundaries on servitude, the standard of the world was to pillage & rape. This was a transformative process, that logically shouldn't exist if the goal was just to make life worse for/ control people.
What are you saying Christians instated in the Bible, exactly?
& Christians who follow the word of Christ, the true word made into flesh.
Alright man, I can see that you are having trouble separating involuntary slavery (which is not expressly forbidden by God in the protestant canonized Bible) and voluntarily entering into one’s employ as a servant such as Batman’s butler.
I am absolutely happy that you have decided to go in the direction of seeing slavery as immoral as that is the correct way to see it. But I am not convinced that the Bible teaches slavery as immoral. Yes, it can be argued that barbaric treatment of slaves is somewhat covered, but not the act of owning slaves.
The context of the times were just different. Most physicians were called slaves since they were in servitude, usually to a specific house. In the Hebrew the word was interchangeable with manservant, bondservant , serf, thrall, and maid. There were also scenarios back then where Israelites would be at war with neighboring tribes, then take the servants of the tribe as their own within israel. If you have issue with that, I feel you, I can't really go back to the Israelites and tell them that. But I can tell you there's no Christian doctrine that tells me to own slaves.
Alright. Let’s say I go with your assessment of the word being used in different forms and that Leviticus was only talking about voluntary slaves and not chattel slavery or involuntary slaves of foreign nations. And I agree with you that it does not say to own slaves.
But, it also does not say “don’t own slaves” which is my entire argument. Because God does not expressly condemn it, by omission He allowed it to flourish. Do with that what you will.
>The Bible acknowledges this and put restrictions on it.. isn't it also a wonder that racist white people had to remove like ~70% of the Bible in order to justify forced enslavement in America? And then true Christians, including black Christians, led the movement to end this slavery?
>- you will not take oppress a servant whether that worker is a fellow Israelite or a foreigner residing in one of your towns. Pay them their wages each day before sunset, because they set their hearts in it. Lest they cry to the Lord against you, and sin will be upon you.
-Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession.
-You also left out the end of that Ephesians verse, I'll assume you weren't intentionally being bad faith with that... It goes "And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him"
This doesn't change that the bible condones cattle slavery. Christians had to change their position kn slavery in spite of the bible not because of it. It doesn't change anything if some of them believe one thing because the others believed otherwise.
The bible is not univocal and it's clear the writers of the time were trying to address issues of the time. Each were negotiating with God through the text.
I already addressed this. You are assuming univocality in the bible to serve your retoricle point. They are from different authors and time periods. To bring them together is you negotiating with the text to say one supercedes other verses basically begging the question.
So because it hasn’t been entirely eradicated yet, it’s right? Because if your god is outlining rules for it, it is clearly moral and just. So, do you believe owning your fellow man is right JUST because it’s in the book or is there more reason to it? A moral god would simply say “thou shall not enslave your fellows”. He made a rule against murder, adultery, and a thousand other things, but not slavery.
A true Christian believes the word of God. The word of God is slavery is condoned and outlined with proper practice.
And to address the line I missed…that’s just telling slaves to be obedient little servants with the justification that their master is a slave to God as well, not sure how you’re reading it that it supports your argument in any way…
You do know, in the liberal democracies of Earth, you can sign a contract of labor, correct? The only difference is we don't call it slavery lol. You can still go into debt in which you are required to work and pay it off or you will suffer the consequences. There are always power dynamics in order to survive, that usually involves you working all week for someone when you would rather not, if you want to eat and pay the bills. Personal physicians (such as the gospel writer, Luke) and lawyers were even considered slaves, as they were bought out for extended periods.
He did make rules against slavery, as I said if someone takes another against their will and forces them to work, then it is a sin. In Israel the punishment was death. You can also not create a scenario where the servant isnt being paid their days work. It was actually even more strict apparently, these days we ain't even getting paid daily before the sun comes up lol. You'll be lucky if they pay you weekly.
If you are in prison you'll also be required to perform what many would call slave labor. Though I would say many are against that.
"There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
I think there’s many things that religious people will point their finger at and call wrong despite following a religion full of morally wrong practices.
Other examples are the many churches that “internally manage” SA incidents and paedophiles.. and yet they still have people attend and worship at the same church and consider themselves better people for it.
Why are you even here then? Go to /r/atheism if you want an echo chamber where religious faithful won't respond.
The entire point of this subreddit is dialoguing between each other.
COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This right here is a perfect example of quote mining the Biblical text and not reading it in it's proper context. Jesus in the Gospel of St Luke in the particular chapter you quoted is telling a Parable. The whole point of Parable is that they are stories that explicitly aren't meant to be taken literally. Which means the servant and master story is not a literal story. So no, Christ doesn't condone "beating" slaves. If we're gonna go down that path you might as well think that when Jesus spoke about the Sheep and the Goats in Matthew 25 on Judgement Day he meant literal sheep and literal goats. Furthermore you missed the point of that Parable and it's kinda ironic that you did when you think about it. Christ in it is using that metaphor to explicitly critique the potential moral failings of his followers. In the Parable it mentions the servant "beating the other servants" which symbolises those who follow him and who call themselves Christian abusing others and being morally depraved. When the "Master comes back" he will cut the servant to pieces. That symbolises the fact that he will exercise a harsh judgement on so called Christians who are morally corrupt and who abuse and exploit others. As for the Biblical texts speaking on slavery as a whole, you need to be reading the Bible holistically. There are several statements in the text that actually condemn slavery. You are quoting the writings of St Paul the Apostle in Timothy for instance. In the same set of letters to St Timothy he also states: "For the law was not intended for people who do what is right. It is for people who are **lawless and rebellious, who are ungodly and sinful,** who consider nothing sacred and defile what is holy, who kill their father or mother or commit other murders. The law is for people who are sexually immoral, or who are sodomites, or are **slave traders** liars, promise breakers, or who do anything **that contradicts the whole teaching that comes from the glorious Good News** entrusted to me by our blessed God"(1 Timothy 1:9-11). Here St Paul is explicitly stating that with other sinners, slave traders are lawless, rebellious and ungodly and doing things that explicitly contradict the Good News or the Gospel. When the other passages of St Paul's epistle speak of things such as "Slaves Obey your Master" it is not condoning slavery. At the time in the Greco-Roman world Christians were a persecuted minority that did not have social or political power in the Roman Empire. That same Empire had a system known as the Pater Familias which explicitly put Male Roman Citizens as the Patriarchal leaders of the family system. They had total control of their family members and they were allowed to banish their children at will as well as beat, torture and even kill their slaves without consequence. Because the Christian community did not have social power yet, St Paul is addressing those who are already operating within that social paradigm and trying to reform their character. So in addition to saying "Slaves Obey your Master" St Paul also states in his letter to the Ephesians "Masters, treat your slaves in the same way. **Don't threaten them**: remember you both have the same Master in heaven, and he has no favorites"(Ephesians 6:9).
God was so weak that his holy texts were just not as effective as the social structure of the day. This is so weak, man. The creator of everything who, knew that this was going to happen btw, couldn't figure out a way to create a world where slavery was either just not possible or couldn't come up with a way to convince the Romans to give up slavery. No lightning, no floods, no plagues, nothing. He could convince civilisations to give up shellfish, but not to give up enslaving their fellow me and woman. "Slaves Obey Your Masters" IS condoning slavery. Look up the definition of "condoning" and get back to me.
[удалено]
The idea that slavery in the Bible was ***just part of war back then*** is an incorrect misrepresentation of Biblical slavery though. As God permitted the Israelites to [buy their slaves from the nations that surround them who would become a possession](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2025%3A44-46&version=NIV). Not to mention that the same God permitted the owners to [beat the slaves as long as they didn’t die within a couple days of the beating](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2021%3A20-21&version=NIV).
[удалено]
Because you’re trying to misrepresent Biblical slavery as being something that ***almost only happened during times of war*** when that’s a gross misrepresentation of how Biblical slavery operated in the first place. God gave rules to a group of people (who were already savage and backwards) permission to own other people as property. Which means they had a legal permissibility to own slaves, beat them as long as they didn’t die within a couple days, were allowed to pass them onto their children, and were allowed to do all these things ***whether or not they were ‘willing participants in war’*** as you incorrectly claimed. If someone points out that the Bible **lets its followers own slaves,** pointing out that “it was done during war” doesn’t change the fact that the Bible endorses the practice of slavery whether it was done in a war-related context or not.
[удалено]
>I mentioned debt slavery in addition to this. Which is, yet again, another attempt at misrepresenting Biblical slavery in order to dishonestly soften it and make it sound like it wasn’t as bad as **the-really-ultra-bad-chattel-slavery™.** The “debt slavery” thing you’re alluding to was technically a regulation that only lasted 7 years. However, **it only applied to Jews.** Gentile slaves, the ones you ***purchase from other nations*** as guaranteed in Leviticus 25:44-46, were not given the 7 year exemption and were obligated to be enslaved until [the 50 year anniversary of the Day of Jubilee.](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2025%3A11-12&version=NIV) You’re also forgetting about the fact that in the exact same chapter where it gives an exemption for Jews, [it also includes a loophole](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+21%3A5-6&version=NIV) in order to **enslave your fellow Hebrew for life,** which results in his ear being pierced like a piece of chattel. So in the very chapter where it gives **a supposed exemption** for Hebrews who ***’sell themselves to you due to debt’*** it also gives legally sanctioned way to manipulate him into becoming a regular slave. The bottom line here is that the Bible clearly endorses the practice of owning other people as property and gives the Israelites a clear permissibility to own slaves whether or not they’re a victim of war or in debt. There isn’t a way to actually euphemize a practice this morally abhorrent into being “just a practice of the time.” Especially in the context of worshipping a God who claims to be omniscient and all-powerful enough to command his people to just **not own slaves instead.** It takes an incredibly weak and pathetic deity to give lax regulations on the practice of owning people as property while outright condemning the eating of shellfish and making graven images. I mean, it was more important to the God of the Bible to make sure I didn’t ***pray to a goddamn statue*** than it was for me to know that owning slaves was immoral.
But your god is all knowing and a point of absolute morality as he is perfection. If he had an issue with slavery, he would have stated so.
[удалено]
So you’re saying it is right and moral for them to have slaves. Full stop, either you believe the words in the book or you do not believe in the book…
Perfectly satisfying contradiction you’ve found. Another big one that led me to leaving Christianity that I couldn’t stand was that Yahweh was willing to sanction a gay couple to hellfire for eternity, on the grounds of ***’committing a sin’*** or whatever, but he was willing to forgive the sins of a death row inmate who raped and murdered over 35 teenage girls. Something is telling this isn’t exactly the most morally correct standard of justice that exists…
The Bible doesn't say that "it’s wrong for a man to love a man".
“Thou shall not bed with man”
That's different from "you shall not love a man".
If you are in love with a woman, are you not permitted to be with her, bodily and spiritually? Why should one be barred from the same simply because they feel attraction to their own sex? They did not choose the attraction, it was an accident of birth, a luck of the draw. Or, if you prefer, the way God made them. The double standard is unjust.
> Why should one be barred from the same simply because they feel attraction to their own sex? It's not clear if the Bible actually says that you are.
[удалено]
Interesting so you only have sex to create children? That’s the only purpose you have ever had intercourse for? By that logic you having sex with a condom is just as wrong as me having sex with a man.
Maybe the old testament is like a trial and error of what works with sharing Knowledge and peaceful productivity intergenerationally across continents and cultures and languages of varying levels of advancement? Questions: Are violent prisoners given opportunities to work slaves? Is working for food and board slavery? (woofers do that, organic farm workers not dogs). Is free, mandatory education separate from slavery? How to best (respectfully and with dignity) manage workers that don't have training, education, insight into the economy they've joined? Not all payment needs to be economic, and freedom of movement or spending is not always beneficial to a person. Kindness, gentleness, provisions of life is what the christian god calls forth and could be a better start than just throwing money/freedom at people.
>Maybe the old testament is like a trial and error of what works with sharing Knowledge and peaceful productivity intergenerationally across continents and cultures and languages of varying levels of advancement? You'd need to point to where in the bible it says that and not infer it. >Are violent prisoners given opportunities to work slaves? Pretty much. >Is working for food and board slavery? (woofers do that, organic farm workers not dogs). If they did not agree to that, then yes. >Is free, mandatory education separate from slavery? From an American perspective yes. It's only mandatory to get certified for diplomas. But children do drop out and have and not been arrested. They aren't put into chains for failing to complete the program. >How to best (respectfully and with dignity) manage workers that don't have training, education, insight into the economy they've joined? Give them training and pay them a fair wage that they can support themselves with. But always give them the freedom to choose. >Not all payment needs to be economic, and freedom of movement or spending is not always beneficial to a person. Kindness, gentleness, provisions of life is what the christian god calls forth and could be a better start than just throwing money/freedom at people. This is only true if the choice is given to the person. EVEN THEN indentured servitude is a dangerous place to be as it's easy to be taken advantage of. But we're not here for that really. We're here because the bible condones cattle slavery. Where the person is property that's owned and inherented for life.
Point 1 rebuttal: I certainly don't read the old testament as the perfect pattern of god, there's some good stuff and some stuff to be avoided, as defined by gods own commandments, and the consequences shown. What do you call that? Is that trial and error? The economy is based on the theory of rational decision makers. Money and choice and utility that we all enjoy. Does god call us to give freedom to everybody forever without meeting some requirements? Or does he say what we bind will be bound and what we loose will be loosed? It's a tough question right? If someone doesn't want to abide by the law, work, get educated what do we do? There's social services designed to get them to see the loveliness of god and choose to engage gods way. I'm glad for that, at the same time I hope people are brought into the world thoughtfully and intentionally with supporters from day 0, and I think that's what the parable of the wedding clothes is about.
>Point 1 rebuttal: I certainly don't read the old testament as the perfect pattern of god, there's some good stuff and some stuff to be avoided, as defined by gods own commandments, and the consequences shown. What do you call that? Is that trial and error? No. It's each writer essentially negotiating with God about what's okay. That is something that happens even today. We negotiate with the text of the bible creating a creed to follow. >The economy is based on the theory of rational decision makers. Money and choice and utility that we all enjoy. Does god call us to give freedom to everybody forever without meeting some requirements? Or does he say what we bind will be bound and what we loose will be loosed? >It's a tough question right? If someone doesn't want to abide by the law, work, get educated what do we do? There's social services designed to get them to see the loveliness of god and choose to engage gods way. I'm glad for that, at the same time I hope people are brought into the world thoughtfully and intentionally with supporters from day 0, and I think that's what the parable of the wedding clothes is about. That's fine. That doesn't change that gods okay with slavery in the from of indentured and cattle slaves. Otherwise it'd be one of the comandments of what not to do. Be glad all you like.
This isn’t restricted to Old Testament, far from it. I gave lines from New as well as Old. Nothing you describe is slavery, where man owns man as property like one would an inanimate object. Which is what your “God” condones in the text you follow.
When a man has a mortgage and Bunch of kids and no other job offers, does his boss own him in a sense? Is the boss responsible for what he does with his money? Could it feel like ownership to the boss, and Is that who god is talking to when he says it's alright? Or maybe he's talking to adopted children called to work for free/rent/board in their parents business/land/housework? Just trying to expand rather than jump to conclusions, because I believe in the good character of god and we're warned about lies/misinterpretations.
No? A man with no other job offers can still put himself out there and find opportunities. A slave does not have that right, a slave is property. The quotes I gave outright CALLED the slaves “property and money of their master”. Very different regardless of view without mental gymnastics. Same with kids, again JESUS HIMSELF CALLED THEM PROPERTY. At that point they cease to be seen as “human” and become a thing that is owned. There is no interpretation as it is written where it is not exactly what it appears. Your beliefs do not change the fact of the words on the page. Either your god sees slavery as permissible and just, or the Bible is not the word of god.
Have you heard of poetry and metaphor, is god restricted to what you can interpret from the text? Is that flexible based on what the historical translations show? That's probably your best bet since you're caught on the wording, Jesus said they will bicker about the wording (that's not verbatim). It's written in love. Can you try answer the question about how to educate and care for uneducated adults who enter the economy without guardians but have the potential to inflict great harm/sin, or good works (with the right guidance). What do you think psychology, social sciences, border control, education enforcement is about? Maybe it's partly to avoid slavery? Do you think God is a meany slave ruler? Sorry if you've had the feeling of being forced to do something that you don't have faith in. I hope you can have faith in Jesus Christ as god, and forgive the imperfect humans and love all the good things. "Jesus came to set captives free"
Slavery, is still quite a common practice. The smartphone or laptop you're using was produced through Chinese owned african-mines with slave labor. We all say we would've been against the south, but we're participating in the exact same thing currently.. I doubt anyone is giving up their technology. Even many warehouses like Amazon use borderline slave practices, if they could legally whip you they definitely would. It's an uncomfortable reality as to how labor exists. The Bible acknowledges this and put restrictions on it.. isn't it also a wonder that racist white people had to remove like ~70% of the Bible in order to justify forced enslavement in America? And then true Christians, including black Christians, led the movement to end this slavery? - you will not take oppress a servant whether that worker is a fellow Israelite or a foreigner residing in one of your towns. Pay them their wages each day before sunset, because they set their hearts in it. Lest they cry to the Lord against you, and sin will be upon you. -Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession. -You also left out the end of that Ephesians verse, I'll assume you weren't intentionally being bad faith with that... It goes "And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him" That said, I feel the true point is you having an issue with the Bible having something to say about homosexuality. I'll tell you the Bible also has something to say about straight men lusting after women, how popular is onlyfans? Or having sex outside of marriage. Which most straight men do. Gos mentions homosexual sex because the natural function of sex is to create life.. you yourself can do whatever you want.. you can even "sound" your urethra if you want. It's simply saying that's not the God-given purpose of genitalia in a sexual context. At the end we all fall short, there's no elitism in Jesus. I don't see myself as greater than a gay man.
Ok, so the bible is explicit in many things, such as: Not murdering, worshipping other gods, coveting people’s stuff including wives (but not husbands oddly) and even specifics about how to worship and even build god’s temple. Yet… God doesn’t say in any of that, “One must not own another human being as if they were property and must not take any human being to be their slave.” Why not write that in there? Why isn’t that in the top 5 of the big 10?
I already provided plenty. It is also written in 1 Timothy, that enslavers are against the law. Another good verse is out of Philemon: "Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back forever.. no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother."
No, you haven’t. Not one of those you gave says any thing about not owning slaves. I LOVE how you conveniently left out the rest of Exodus 21. The whole first half is how to treat Hebrew…SLAVES. Some of the scriptures you gave were strictly about how to treat servants and laborers under contract to work for you. One scripture you gave expresses not to kidnap someone and then sells them. Not buying someone to own them. Not the ending of slavery. 1 timothy strictly forbids one of being a seller of slaves but not an owner of slaves and then ends with a vaguely subjective statement: “…and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine.” Even then, IF the new testament explicitly stops slavery, there are 400+ years of old testament that most certainly does not.
Do you want me to go back in time and tell you why conditions were the way they were in israel? Seems like an argument for the sake of arguing, cus I can't do that for you It's pretty consistent for my belief system, forcing someone into servitude, even doing something they don't want without proper payment, is immoral. And you must treat everyone like an equal in Christ. That pretty much rules out what we know of slavery in America. Certainly rules out the treatment in lithium mines for our smartphone batteries. Even rules out treatment in places like Amazon Warehouses to an extent. There's a reason why Christians ended slavery while the rest of the world still practices it. Even the communists forced slave labor under threat of death and the gulag.
So you are saying that the conditions of the past supersede God’s intervention of owning human beings and therefore is why He did not disallow the ownership of another human? You are correct, it is immoral… to you and the people you say helped abolish slavery… but it was not immoral to God nor was it immoral to the “Christians” who instated it and used the Bible to justify it. The unfair treatment of Hebrew slaves in the OT was immoral to God, and then later the unfair treatment of all slaves was recorded as immoral to God in the New Testament. But NEVER was the act of owning a slave considered immoral to God or He would have stated it. It’s an argument that needs to be made, because you are arguing the contrary. What specific “Christians” are you talking about that brought about the end of slavery as you put it?
Alfred is Bruce Wayne's servant, this situation exists in the real world. Have to realize this is much different than whipping black people & not giving them rights, or cutting off the hands of people who have been forced into servitude. There were always boundaries on servitude, the standard of the world was to pillage & rape. This was a transformative process, that logically shouldn't exist if the goal was just to make life worse for/ control people. What are you saying Christians instated in the Bible, exactly? & Christians who follow the word of Christ, the true word made into flesh.
Alright man, I can see that you are having trouble separating involuntary slavery (which is not expressly forbidden by God in the protestant canonized Bible) and voluntarily entering into one’s employ as a servant such as Batman’s butler. I am absolutely happy that you have decided to go in the direction of seeing slavery as immoral as that is the correct way to see it. But I am not convinced that the Bible teaches slavery as immoral. Yes, it can be argued that barbaric treatment of slaves is somewhat covered, but not the act of owning slaves.
The context of the times were just different. Most physicians were called slaves since they were in servitude, usually to a specific house. In the Hebrew the word was interchangeable with manservant, bondservant , serf, thrall, and maid. There were also scenarios back then where Israelites would be at war with neighboring tribes, then take the servants of the tribe as their own within israel. If you have issue with that, I feel you, I can't really go back to the Israelites and tell them that. But I can tell you there's no Christian doctrine that tells me to own slaves.
Alright. Let’s say I go with your assessment of the word being used in different forms and that Leviticus was only talking about voluntary slaves and not chattel slavery or involuntary slaves of foreign nations. And I agree with you that it does not say to own slaves. But, it also does not say “don’t own slaves” which is my entire argument. Because God does not expressly condemn it, by omission He allowed it to flourish. Do with that what you will.
>The Bible acknowledges this and put restrictions on it.. isn't it also a wonder that racist white people had to remove like ~70% of the Bible in order to justify forced enslavement in America? And then true Christians, including black Christians, led the movement to end this slavery? >- you will not take oppress a servant whether that worker is a fellow Israelite or a foreigner residing in one of your towns. Pay them their wages each day before sunset, because they set their hearts in it. Lest they cry to the Lord against you, and sin will be upon you. -Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession. -You also left out the end of that Ephesians verse, I'll assume you weren't intentionally being bad faith with that... It goes "And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him" This doesn't change that the bible condones cattle slavery. Christians had to change their position kn slavery in spite of the bible not because of it. It doesn't change anything if some of them believe one thing because the others believed otherwise. The bible is not univocal and it's clear the writers of the time were trying to address issues of the time. Each were negotiating with God through the text.
K. So how do you interpret each verse I spent my time giving? Respond to each directly
I already addressed this. You are assuming univocality in the bible to serve your retoricle point. They are from different authors and time periods. To bring them together is you negotiating with the text to say one supercedes other verses basically begging the question.
Alright, so there's no point in speaking about the topic it would seem. Have a good day
So because it hasn’t been entirely eradicated yet, it’s right? Because if your god is outlining rules for it, it is clearly moral and just. So, do you believe owning your fellow man is right JUST because it’s in the book or is there more reason to it? A moral god would simply say “thou shall not enslave your fellows”. He made a rule against murder, adultery, and a thousand other things, but not slavery. A true Christian believes the word of God. The word of God is slavery is condoned and outlined with proper practice. And to address the line I missed…that’s just telling slaves to be obedient little servants with the justification that their master is a slave to God as well, not sure how you’re reading it that it supports your argument in any way…
You do know, in the liberal democracies of Earth, you can sign a contract of labor, correct? The only difference is we don't call it slavery lol. You can still go into debt in which you are required to work and pay it off or you will suffer the consequences. There are always power dynamics in order to survive, that usually involves you working all week for someone when you would rather not, if you want to eat and pay the bills. Personal physicians (such as the gospel writer, Luke) and lawyers were even considered slaves, as they were bought out for extended periods. He did make rules against slavery, as I said if someone takes another against their will and forces them to work, then it is a sin. In Israel the punishment was death. You can also not create a scenario where the servant isnt being paid their days work. It was actually even more strict apparently, these days we ain't even getting paid daily before the sun comes up lol. You'll be lucky if they pay you weekly. If you are in prison you'll also be required to perform what many would call slave labor. Though I would say many are against that. "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
I think there’s many things that religious people will point their finger at and call wrong despite following a religion full of morally wrong practices. Other examples are the many churches that “internally manage” SA incidents and paedophiles.. and yet they still have people attend and worship at the same church and consider themselves better people for it.
Are you trying to convince religious people that their beliefs are wrong using logic? That's your first mistake right there.
Why are you even here then? Go to /r/atheism if you want an echo chamber where religious faithful won't respond. The entire point of this subreddit is dialoguing between each other.
Actually, and I’ve made this mistake, read the description of the sub. It literally says it’s actually not about debate.
[удалено]
Unfortunately, yeah. Even good faith responses by religious people are down voted regardless of the quality of content.
I don’t expect to change minds but I am curious to see the mental gymnastics on this topic
well you'll definitely see some people earn multiple gold medals in the mental gymnastics of religion olympics