Does the Bible condone slavery?

[cvanwey]

Biblical slave regulations are for ancient Hebrews in an ancient world. It has nothing to do with modern understanding of slavery... or 400 year old understanding of it. Ambiguity is not enough to say God supports these systems you are superimposing over the text.

Okay. Let's go with your assertion of:

"Biblical slave regulations are for ancient Hebrews in an ancient world. It has nothing to do with modern understanding of slavery... or 400 year old understanding of it."

Let us see how this pans out, by asking a few basic follow up questions and/or making basic observation(s):

Please now address the following:

1. When Jesus comes along, does He ever mention His direct abolition for future slavery, like He seems to in places with many other 'obvious' topics of concern, or, does He instead continue to condone such practices, moving forward?

2. Both Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25 speak about foreign slaves, not just Hebrews, for life.

3. Apparently, one can purchase foreigners as property/money/possession for life. The text does not look to give qualifiers or restrictions only to a specific time, era, or situation.

4. Exodus states you can beat your slave. But it really basically stops there. The Bible looks very clumsy here, in the fact the Bible mentions the allowance of beatings, but then does not give virtually any guidelines to it's limitations. This is ambiguity.

5. Apparently, if you are born into such a situation, all bets are off, you are the enslaver's property for life. Thus, a chattel slaver can simply go to another area, and freely buy these people, whom are born into slavery, with impunity.

 

[muichimotsu]

Don't slave too hard at trying to find something that supports your denigration of the Jews.

How dare you try to accuse people of any form of antisemitism? Could you be any more dishonest in demonizing and antagonizing others because you refuse to even deign to possibly be wrong?

 

[muichimotsu]

Biblical slave regulations are for ancient Hebrews in an ancient world. It has nothing to do with modern understanding of slavery... or 400 year old understanding of it. Ambiguity is not enough to say God supports these systems you are superimposing over the text.

And you're flat out wrong, because there were regulations specifically for non Hebrew slaves and they didn't work the same in the slightest, except at best in the notion of some kind of "compassion", however superficial that is when you're owning a person as what is explicitly referred to as property

 

[muichimotsu]

Wow! You beat me to it
Quick work!
And, of course, I agree with what you say.

That occurred to me practically 10 years ago in regards to the hypocrisy, but I stowed it away somewhere in my brain until more recently.

 

[muichimotsu]

Warren is inexcusably wrong nor does he represent the normative Christian view. I might as well say he represents the American view but doing so would be a strawman because this is not what Americans think. Perhaps some of them thought this way at some time and perhaps some still do but largely this type of thinking is condemned.

No true Scotsman is a fallacy, or don't you realize you're essentially pulling that here?

He represented the Confederate view and a Christian view that was advocated by them; to say otherwise is ignoring that historical context and saying they were wrong merely because you disagree with their interpretations that were wholly common for hundreds of years since the bible was canonized, though not universal

Christians do not view the texts as you do, they do not use it to justify slavery, perhaps some of them did at one time and perhaps some still do but just like Americans there are some flawed Christians out there.

Again, them believing something you disagree with doesn't make them somehow invalid in reflecting an interpretation of the Christian texts that you haven't really criticized beyond saying you don't hold it yourself

You can read the bible as a pretext for a system that supports slavery or you can read it as a system responding in a greater ancient mindset. Without a foundational belief of God first it's just stuff that happens with no goal other than survival. With an understanding that there is a God nothing is arbitrary and the flawed actions of man can still be redeemed and move in an ordained direction. The US has their own tainted history and used scripture to justify many different things but that's their flawed actions to their own undoing not the bible/Christianity

No, that's a strawman of nontheistic positions. Survival as the sole aspect would be Social Darwinism or such, which is not remotely what secular humanism or other nontheistic systems advocate as a goal in life. Something is not arbitrary merely because a worldview doesn't have God in it, you're begging the question by saying God is absolutely required for that.

We cannot comment to the degree slavery was embedded in systems 4000 years ago in the middle east and how it affected the individuals a part of it, slave or free nor can we comment how the Hebrew system worked in this, certainly there was injustice but the Hebrew system seems to be about providing justice within this system. But we don't have the sort of detail to responsibly understand it's impact or role. It's flawed to superimpose our thinking over that system or to superimpose that system in our thinking today (or 150 years ago as Warren did). That's not the point of the bible but you seem to be working hard at forcing this flawed view.

We can speculate and we likely have some degrees of text to reflect an attitude had, but the further back we go, the more difficult it becomes.

Again, there cannot be justice in a system that enslaves people even with some rules about their treatment. That's like saying, "Yeah, you get paid a fair wage in your job, but you get psychological abuse from your superiors and that's just how it is, but at least they're not stiffing you,"

If the Bible is meant to reflect abstract ideals that are unchanging, then how is it irrational to apply the ideas in some more nominal sense, as Tone did in regards to the notion that we are all in slavery and thus slavery really cannot be said to be immoral, but amoral in the view that we are slave to Satan or God and cannot serve 2 masters

No one accepts it, you don't, I don't, nor do Christians at large... and the best source you can find in support of this view was 150 years ago so why are we even talking about it? This is why it's a strawman. Why should I pick through Warren's comments? I've already pointed out his bias and how his premise is flawed, so do I have to go brick by brick after the foundation is already torn down?

You cannot say no one accepts it without absolute knowledge, because I'm pretty sure there are still people that believe it, even if they are a massive minority. It's not a strawman to point to him as a reflection of the ideas that justified slavery that may very well persist today, same as the Confederacy's invoking of similar ideas that slavery was a natural state, right around the same time as Warren's sermon

His premise being flawed does not mean people are going to realize that innately, you assume people are just going to see that problem and not buy into the ideas, even if they don't support slavery, but some systemic racism that has persisted into modern days

 

[muichimotsu]

So these "slaves," as you call them ... did they just walk up to slave traders and say, "Take me! Take me!"

And the slave traders said, "Not until you sign a deposition on your own accord that you are not being kidnapped."

Is that how it worked?

Because, after all, had they been kidnapped, the slave traders would not be in operation for very long, as they would be placed on Israel's most wanted list.

Do you think the slave buying happened in Israelite majority lands or is it impossible they bought these slaves somewhere in which those condemnations didn't apply? Same way that the Atlantic slave trade bought from African slavers for that loophole of not kidnapping slaves, so they were following the Biblical mandates

 

[muichimotsu]

Ham wasn't cursed. His son Canaan was.

More pedantic nitpicking: the point is the association of being black with a curse is utterly ridiculous and based in the kind of literalism that shows a fundamental lack of critical thought

 

[muichimotsu]

No, It doesn't.

And if It did, probably all It would say is: Thou shalt not have slaves.

Except it never does that, you're deluded to claim it does even implicitly, since the idea at the core is being slave to God anyway, so the acknowledgement of slavery under God would just be a means to an end

 

[AV1611VET]

More pedantic nitpicking: the point is the association of being black with a curse is utterly ridiculous and based in the kind of literalism that shows a fundamental lack of critical thought

Nobody is black because of a curse.

Ham settled in Africa.

Remember Egypt? it was called ...

Psalm 105:23 Israel also came into Egypt; and Jacob sojourned in the land of Ham.

Canaan, his son, went north and settled in the Promised Land.

Neither one were black.

 

[AV1611VET]

Except it never does that, you're deluded to claim it does even implicitly, since the idea at the core is being slave to God anyway,

Then why does Paul call himself a servant?

Romans 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,

Philippians 1:1 Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:

Titus 1:1 Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness;

 

[AV1611VET]

How dare you try to accuse people of any form of antisemitism?

Then don't try to make me think the Jews were lawful slave traders.

 

[cvanwey]

Then don't try to make me think the Jews were lawful slave traders.

But they were. You are just not acknowledging it. You have made virtually no attempt in refuting the many points made.

(i.e.) If a 'servant' has a child, from a provided for wife during 'servitude', that offspring is the "servant owner's" possession for life - Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25 allows for such offspring to be purchased as lifetime 'servants', whom can also apparently be beaten without much in the way of any restrictions - free from impunity.

All descendants, there-after, are also free and clear for purchase, with impunity. Because remember, none of them were 'kidnapped'

 

[muichimotsu]

Nobody is black because of a curse.

Ham settled in Africa.

Remember Egypt? it was called ...

Psalm 105:23 Israel also came into Egypt; and Jacob sojourned in the land of Ham.

Canaan, his son, went north and settled in the Promised Land.

Neither one were black.

I'm not saying the interpretation was right: or did you just read me saying that as if I thought all Christians believed that (because I didn't claim that)? The problem is the curse imposed by Noah would still seem to impose servitude or slavery upon Ham's descendants based on little more than being a good son and telling his brothers so they could cover their drunk father's naked body

 

[muichimotsu]

Then don't try to make me think the Jews were lawful slave traders.

They dealt in slaves, that doesn't make them slave traders, it makes them slave buyers. Don't try this pedantic wordplay, it's not indicative of much more than rhetorical spin instead of logical consistency. They had a law that said they could buy slaves and did: or are you saying God later would say it's wrong to buy slaves? By all means point that out instead of quote mining out of context

 

[muichimotsu]

Then why does Paul call himself a servant?

Romans 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,

Philippians 1:1 Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:

Titus 1:1 Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness;

I didn't deny that, you're still harping on translation as if your idolized translation is the only right one instead of arguing why it should be considered correct. Circular reasoning is still fallacious, even if you don't realize you're using it.

Slave is not an unreasonable translation of those same verses to reflect the dynamic of power where God is the master and the slaves must be obedient above all else. Or does God not punish rebellion?

 

[AV1611VET]

... based on little more than being a good son and telling his brothers so they could cover their drunk father's naked body.

There was more to it than that.

QV this explanation in: Post 12

 

[AV1611VET]

Slave is not an unreasonable translation ...

Then if it's just as effective as "servant," why change it?

I suspect it's because they are trying to lower the Jews to the status of slave owners so as to make them deplorable in the eyes of the world.

And it's not going to work because the King James Bible won't let them.

That's one of the reasons the KJB is so detestable in their eyes.

 

[DamianWarS]

And you're flat out wrong, because there were regulations specifically for non Hebrew slaves and they didn't work the same in the slightest, except at best in the notion of some kind of "compassion", however superficial that is when you're owning a person as what is explicitly referred to as property

But we don't know how this was received or the positive/negative impacts it had on a slave and/or surrounding cultures. A hebrew slave has hebrew citizenship so freedom means joining their contemporaries with full participation and rights, something a foreign slave may not have and freedom to them may have a negative impact on their livelihood. We simply cannot comment on the impact of these systems because we don't have any detail that shows the impact and it's irresponsible to just superimpose what we think is slavery over this and then wag our finger. These laws are not for today, they are for ancient hebrews in an ancient world view so we need to adopt this world view if we are to understand it's systems.

 

[muichimotsu]

There was more to it than that.

QV this explanation in: Post 12

The problem remains that the punishment is disproportionate to whatever crime in that someone was basically cursed to servitude for life through generations for something that likely deserved punishment if it was as serious as rape, but didn't deserve anything like that if he was simply checking on his father and, "Oops, he's not wearing clothes, better get some help to make sure he's taken care of,"

 

[muichimotsu]

Then if it's just as effective as "servant," why change it?

I suspect it's because they are trying to lower the Jews to the status of slave owners so as to make them deplorable in the eyes of the world.

And it's not going to work because the King James Bible won't let them.

That's one of the reasons the KJB is so detestable in their eyes.

It's not as effective as servant, the terms have different specific meanings that associate directly with the rules in place, where the slaves are property: Alfred was not Bruce Wayne's property, he worked for the Wayne family as an employee treated with respect and equality

No, it's being honest to the rules in place, which treat Gentiles as property by the explicit wording in pretty much any translation, they are not equals, they are dehumanized. This isn't about anti semitism, it's pointing out basic facts that some are unwilling to admit because that would, to them, seem like denying Israel, which is tantamount to blasphemy and heresy. Which is absurd, as if one should focus more on piety than reason.

And playing favorites to the Jews, as if no one can insult them when they're blatantly immoral in owning people as property, selling off their daughters, etc, is the height of prejudice in itself, because it makes them veritably an idol, a sacred cow you refuse to hear any objections about because you're so thoroughly indoctrinated that they were right and never did wrong (except that they were just stepping stones to God eventually doing that next step of whatever grand plan it supposedly had, in which case, why care about them being insulted at all, they're expendable by God's own admission, because they're not going to convert, they'll stick to Judaism)