Does the Bible condone slavery?

[DamianWarS]

Except I'm pretty sure historians have gleaned some ideas of their practices, they're not absolutely mysterious as if we cannot assess them at all

The biblical practices taken on their own are still problematic based on an outdated notion where the only solution perceived was to subjugate people and try to be compassionate about it, as if domination was how civil society should work instead of cooperation as equals. The Israelites demonstrably have a xenophobic sort of system where their own group is treated far better than the outsiders who they can buy as slaves and treat as property. The only constraint is being nice, but that's with the assumption that "nice" means something that pretty clearly is not above raping women (taken from a conquered nation as a wife) or beating slaves under the auspices of "discipline"

you're not commenting on the historians that you're vaguely pretty sure about. you're commenting on your own superimposed assumptions. the ancient systems are also far more complicated than you are allowing them to be. you're pretending full egalitarian values are compatible in these ancient systems without having any understanding of the system you so quickly write off. eastern values are not equality driven they are honor-driven and desire group identity. Forcing values that no one is asking for is a very ethnocentric and colonial way of approaching the problem saying my way is better than your way, meanwhile never really paying attention. the bible does not tell us to change systems it tells us to show God's glory within the systems.

 

[muichimotsu]

you're not commenting on the historians that you're vaguely pretty sure about. you're commenting on your own superimposed assumptions. the ancient systems are also far more complicated than you are allowing them to be. you're pretending full egalitarian values are compatible in these ancient systems without having any understanding of the system you so quickly write off. eastern values are not equality driven they are honor-driven and desire group identity. Forcing values that no one is asking for is a very ethnocentric and colonial way of approaching the problem saying my way is better than your way, meanwhile never really paying attention. the bible does not tell us to change systems it tells us to show God's glory within the systems.

No, I'm not simplifying them, because I understand there are those nuances that you're glossing over to say it's all a unified system when there are definitively 2 different systems for Hebrews and Gentiles in the text

I didn't claim they were egalitarian, I said they were being magnanimous in a manner that, while appealing and reasonable to them, cannot be said to be truly moral, especially given its presence in a book that's said to be moral guidance

I'm not saying my way is better, I'm saying the facts don't support any idea that someone should be subservient to another based on ethnic origin or outdated norms that value conformity over autonomy

Ah, so you are basically saying the Bible condones slavery, because the goal is not anything resembling abolition, but showing "God's glory" within systems that, by your admission, are broken, like slavery. The NT has several examples of that, you're really just digging a deeper hole here by this idea that the Bible can't be criticized by modern standards when you're giving all the reasons it isn't remotely moral unless you agree with those standards already and are making defenses for them.

 

[Par5]

anecdotal

No surprise there then as it was a commentary on a section of a book whose content, for the most part, is anecdotal.

 

[DamianWarS]

I'm not saying my way is better, I'm saying the facts don't support any idea that someone should be subservient to another based on ethnic origin or outdated norms that value conformity over autonomy

What facts are these? What outdated norms are these? Are you speaking of what's normal for you? Group identiy and honor systems are more important than autonomy especially in ancient eastern systems and are still active in eastern cultures regardless of your knowledge of it or how out dated you call them. Who you belong to gives you value and identiy and to those without identiy this would be welcomed. I don't know how this extends to slavary in the context or is received by a slave but it certainly plays a role. An individual with no identiy is an outcast and is can only participate in society as an outcast belonging to another gives this official status. This is just not for slaves but for everyone under the household.

 

[DamianWarS]

No surprise there then as it was a commentary on a section of a book whose content, for the most part, is anecdotal.

The bible is anecdotal. No surprise there. It's on you however to move beyond the anecdotal. If all we want is anecdotal evidence then this just turns into a contest of how many stories we can Google that agree with our positions. I'm not interested in that conversation.

 

[muichimotsu]

What facts are these? What outdated norms are these? Are you speaking of what's normal for you? Group identiy and honor systems are more important than autonomy especially in ancient eastern systems and are still active in eastern cultures regardless of your knowledge of it or how out dated you call them. Who you belong to gives you value and identiy and to those without identiy this would be welcomed. I don't know how this extends to slavary in the context or is received by a slave but it certainly plays a role. An individual with no identiy is an outcast and is can only participate in society as an outcast belonging to another gives this official status. This is just not for slaves but for everyone under the household.

That doesn't mean they are right, you're engaging in postmodern analysis, saying we cannot criticize it because they're valid to them, which is irrelevant to whether they are, in fact, better or even equal

If one is so desperate for identity, they enslave themselves, that's not a good system, it's wholly inhumane with a veneer of magnanimity and compassion, while encouraging tribalism that we grew out of 2000+ years ago as a civilization

All this amounts to is defending an abuser by saying they care about them, the definition of Stockholm syndrome

 

[DamianWarS]

tribalism that we grew out of 2000+ years ago as a civilization

You think we've grown out of tribalism?

 

[muichimotsu]

You think we've grown out of tribalism?

Compared to those days, yes; entirely, no, of course there's still that tendency. We've grown away from it and moreso sublimated it into nationalism and fundamentalism

 

[InterestedAtheist]

That's why you're so wrong.

You use "slave," instead of "servant."

Did you not see the link I posted, with the many, many Bible verses speaking of slaves?
You might also consider that the Bible is speaking of people who are owned, who belong to their masters, who can be punished and sold at a whim, and who cannot free themselves. That means slaves, no matter if the translation uses that word or not.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I am unable to comment on the moral motivations of ancient people groups with regard to slavery.

You don't need to. All you need to do is consider the question of this thread, "Does the Bible endorse slavery," and realise that the answer is "Yes."

We are not given personal accounts of how this actually played out, how slaves were treated by Hebrews or any positive/negative impact these systems had on surrounding areas or the impact of a slave freed and it if it had a positive/negative impact on their livelihood or desired by the slave.

With a slight tweaking, this would make an excellent defence of slavery in the antebellum South.

all we have are the laws laid out to govern the system in that ancient world view. This is not enough to make the conclusions that Warren makes or to continue to make conclusions about how these laws implicitly value slavery.

But we have more. The Bible doesn't just give laws governing the treatment of slavery, it gives opinions of them. You can read in the Bible how slavery is a good thing, right and fitting; how it is good that some people are owned by others.

Warren states as you requote "[God] denounced idolatry, covetousness, adultery, fornification, hypocrisy, and many other sins of less moral turpitude, but never once reproved them for holding slaves" those same sins Warren highlights also are about how people are treated (and other sins he didn't highlight). Other cultures would have no objections acting these things out upon their slaves as their views wouldn't value a slave's humanity but these are not biblically held views and contrast how other competing cultures viewed and defined slaves.

But these are biblically held views. What are you talking about? They are found in the Bible. And Warren's point is perfectly sound. Jesus Christ did indeed condemn many behaviours he felt were immoral. We know He was aware of slavery and that it was an important part of his culture. As Warren says, He and His followers spoke about slavery a number of times - and never with disapproval. They spoke of it either in neutral terms, or approving ones.

We are given words like "slave" and immediately have a picture of what that means. That picture is then superimposed on any context we see that uses these words. This is done so irresponsibly because we cannot guarantee their similarities and it does not factor in greater cultural complexities that we have no understanding of nor does it factor in original languages used and nuances of words that are incompatible with our own. Instead, we only use our abstract western world views to make judgments and wag our fingers.

The past may be a foreign country, but it is not an entirely unknown one. We do in fact know quite a bit about ancient history, and the position and treatment of slaves in it. Following your arguments, you might just as easily say, "How can we condemn slaveholders in the USA? We're not there, we're not them. What give us the right to judge them?"

You seem to be forcing a narrow view of something over a context you have no understanding of and then pretending this is a good argument.

You seem desperate to escape the entirely obvious conclusion: the people who wrote the Bible approved of slavery.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Honestly @InterestedAtheist , I'm not sure yet myself? It's either blatant cognitive dissonance, or what you stated?

I think that what it is is this:

We all know that slavery is a bad thing. Christians and atheists alike, we all agree on it. But the Bible, and the God that it represents - either as the Father or as the Son - is good, Christians believe. Therefore, the Bible cannot approve of slavery. And so we have...what, 31 pages so far? - of rationalisations. For example:

- "Slave" doesn't actually mean "slave," it means a servant - who could be bought, owned, punished and sold!
- How can we judge the system of slavery? We weren't there!
- Biblical slavery wasn't actually that bad.

There must be a mistake. They're sure of it. Because if there isn't a mistake, then the Bible is in the wrong. And that cannot be allowed to happen.

 

[cvanwey]

I don't see how you interpreted my comments to suggest slavary should then still be practiced in eastern cultures today because I said eastern ways are honor driven and prefer group identities over individual. I am speaking of ancient world views and ancient peoples, not modern. The inability to keep to an ancient context in this thread evades me.

As I've plainly expressed to others, now you included... In regards to 'slavery', the Bible is not directed only and exclusively to a specific era and/or time.

If so, when Jesus later comes along, and also mentions the topic of slavery, does He ever explicitly so say? Or, does He instead also condone such practices? Remember, Jesus came along ~2K years, not 3K

The biblical laws like these are proscriptive and should not be use to draw a moral line of how far you can go nor should we read them as encouragement to meet those boundaries.

What you and I think are irrelevant. It only matters what God thinks. He thinks slavery practices, in practically any form, is a-okay.

An ancient Hebrew could also beat his wife, his son and dog all with impunity so an argument could be made a slave was given rights similar to family members but just because there was no legal punishment doesn't implicitly call it moral. There are loads of things we can do that are immoral with impunity.

All condoned by the Bible apparently.

I really can't comment however on the moral motivation of owning slaves in an ancient world view. I can disagree and condemn it in my modern abstract western understanding but if I did we're not really talking about biblical practices anymore are we? Sure, I think owning slaves is immoral but my world view has little to do with an ancient hebrew owning a slave 3000 years ago and systems that govern them. And I certainly can't comment how it impacted a slave's livelihood in that system or how they received these roles or how they were valued.

Great, you admit 'slavery practices', as instructed within the Bible are 'immoral'. So do I Now all we have to do is ask God why He disagrees with us both. Will you ask Him for me? He does not answer when I ask.

Furthermore, When Jesus later comes along, and also mentions the topic of slavery, does He ever mention future abolition of slavery practices? Or, does He instead also condone such practices? Remember, Jesus came along ~2K years, not 3K

 

[DamianWarS]

Great, you admit 'slavery practices', as instructed within the Bible are 'immoral'.

I'm not interested in these repeated strawmen arguments, I find it disingenuous to the thread and frankly a waste of time. If you want to argue a point you pretend I'm saying then you can have a pretend conversation to do so.

 

[DamianWarS]

With a slight tweaking, this would make an excellent defence of slavery in the antebellum South.

You're avoiding and filling your responses with rhetoric and strawmen. You know the points but refuse to engage them and I'm just not interested in that sort of conversation.

 

[cvanwey]

I'm not interested in these repeated strawmen arguments, I find it disingenuous to the thread and frankly a waste of time. If you want to argue a point you pretend I'm saying then you can have a pretend conversation to do so.

This answer is a complete and total cherry pick, likely to accomplish a direct dodge of my response(s):

You stated, and I quote:

"I can disagree and condemn it in my modern abstract western understanding but if I did we're not really talking about biblical practices anymore are we? Sure, I think owning slaves is immoral but my world view has little to do with an ancient hebrew owning a slave 3000 years ago and systems that govern them. And I certainly can't comment how it impacted a slave's livelihood in that system or how they received these roles or how they were valued."

I'll address the 'buts', just for starters....

- When Jesus comes along, He does not abolish slavery practices. He instead continues to condone them.

- Jesus has and did have complete carte blanche to state His disdain for any topic, for which He apparently did... He also seemed to overturn prior laws, which were in practice. Nowhere does He mention that future slavery is a sin/bad, or against Jesus's wishes.

You are attempting to qualify your given answers with 'buts' attached. However, as demonstrated, your 'buts' do not appear to hold water.

 

[cvanwey]

Taking advantage of the poor is sinful, as is cruel and unusual punishment.

So, anybody who is a harsh taskmaster over employees (servants/slaves) will answer for it.

Just think if Judeo-Christianity had no guidelines for such things. We wouldn't be where we are today with worker's rights and such. We'd probably be more like a caste system.

Then many Christians, including here, are shooting themselves in the foot. Many assert such practices, 'back in the day', was to help the poor from starving, by giving them work. "It was a way to pay off debt.'

Further, the Bible did have 'guidelines'. You can beat them for life, as often as you like, just as long as you don't kill them or knock out their eye.

I ask you again, because you really did not answer the question:

Are you acknowledging that taking other human slaves is 'sinful'?

No.

This means you are fine with the beating of them for life, as often as you like, just as long as you don't kill them or knock out their eye.

Glad we finally settled this...

You touch upon a key to understanding the culture we are discussing. They learned by oral tradition. Some of these things may have to have been hyperbolized just to keep some concentrate through the many retellings. Even Messiah Yahshua used hyperbole often to make strong points.

Why do you completely overlook the fact that this was a viable way to become part of the household...to inherit all the blessings?

I'm completely aware about oral tradition. Very few could read. In regards to the passages about slavery, it's quite plausible such passages were written for the slave owners, many of whom were rich and maybe even literate, to read such passages to their slaves. To keep them in line.... To make them believe God thinks slavery is an acceptable form or practice.... To keep them from running away.... To keep them obedient and to work their hardest.... To justify why beating them from the backside, with impunity, is condoned by God....

Furthermore, such Verses may have been written by fellow slave traders, passing them off as 'god pronouncements', to find loopholes in ways to continue slavery 'forever'.

Simply tell your fellow comrades that you can keep all slave offspring as your property for life. Initially hustle a couple or a few with promises of food and shelter, for which you do give them, thus, it is not a lie, and then take all their children as your property moving forward. You only need to do it one time. All successive generations are the slave master's property, free and clear.

Pretty interesting little system, isn't it?

 

[Tone]

Then many Christians, including here, are shooting themselves in the foot. Many assert such practices, 'back in the day', was to help the poor from starving, by giving them work. "It was a way to pay off debt.'

Further, the Bible did have 'guidelines'. You can beat them for life, as often as you like, just as long as you don't kill them or knock out their eye.

I ask you again, because you really did not answer the question:

Are you acknowledging that taking other human slaves is 'sinful'?



This means you are fine with the beating of them for life, as often as you like, just as long as you don't kill them or knock out their eye.

Glad we finally settled this...



I'm completely aware about oral tradition. Very few could read. In regards to the passages about slavery, it's quite plausible such passages were written for the slave owners, many of whom were rich and maybe even literate, to read such passages to their slaves. To keep them in line.... To make them believe God thinks slavery is an acceptable form or practice.... To keep them from running away.... To keep them obedient and to work their hardest.... To justify why beating them from the backside, with impunity, is condoned by God....

Furthermore, such Verses may have been written by fellow slave traders, passing them off as 'god pronouncements', to find loopholes in ways to continue slavery 'forever'.

Simply tell your fellow comrades that you can keep all slave offspring as your property for life. Initially hustle a couple or a few with promises of food and shelter, for which you do give them, thus, it is not a lie, and then take all their children as your property moving forward. You only need to do it one time. All successive generations are the slave master's property, free and clear.

Pretty interesting little system, isn't it?

Well then,

I believe it all comes down to whether the heart calls its Creator good or evil.

I guess we'll find out what we're made of when the time comes.

Shalom for now.

 

[cvanwey]

Well then,

I believe it all comes down to whether the heart calls its Creator good or evil.

I guess we'll find out what we're made of when the time comes.

Shalom for now.

Well then....

Looks as though you have again ducked out of the debate. I have made many assertions, for which I can back up. You know this, and now switch to unfalsifiable assertions.

Kool. Peace out.

Is it no wonder I asked prior, if you would actually engage, from the video... For which I would hardly call what you have done, as actual constructive engagement

 

[Tone]

Well then....

Looks as though you have again ducked out of the debate. I have made many assertions, for which I can back up. You know this, and now switch to unfalsifiable assertions.

Kool. Peace out.

Is it no wonder I asked prior, if you would actually engage, from the video... For which I would hardly call what you have done, as actual constructive engagement

Why would I eat from that tree?

 

[cvanwey]

Why would I eat from that tree?

The 'tree' for which you choose to 'eat' from, condones slavery practices. I don't. And likely, neither do you.