Slavery, a Guide

[Clizby WampusCat]

How does it do that though? Do you think that it puts forward a reasonable case for the Atlantic Slave Trade?

Based on the Bible, yes. But I will let you and @InterestedAtheist debate that.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

I'm aware that each Chapter, which makes references to 'slaves', does not devote an entire Chapter in doing so... It does not matter how these Verses were intended - (by chapter or not). The Bible flips in and out of speaking about separate laws between the free and the enslaved. It does not matter what Chapter, or whatever, you select. If such a section speaks about slaves in the Bible, it specifies it is speaking about 'slaves' when doing so. The Bible does this to assure the reader that such 'slavery provisions' are not also applicable to the free.

I don't know about "assure" in this context. The verse talking to slaves, is talking to slaves and the one talking to husbands is talking to husbands and the one talking to masters is talking to masters.

That seems to be obvious. This post is addressed to you, it doesn't stop other people reading it or responding to it.

Whatever it is you are trying to convey here is lost on me.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Col. 3:1-10 is instructions to Christians -- (who are free). How do we know? Stay tuned...
Col. 3:11 mentions 'slaves and free', but you must address the context as you continue to read on...

You are correct that it mentions slaves and free, but it also mentions Greek and Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian and ends with slave or free. Had this just been about slaves and free, then you would be correct, but it is not - it is about breaking down distinctions as can be seen from the way it ends: but Christ is all and in all.

Col. 3:12-21 again speaks to free Christians - (as the classified "slaves" are instructed to do otherwise, just below).

Here you are wrong. The passage that follows up until verse 17 is addressed to 'the elect of God, holy and dearly loved'. There is nothing to indicate that this is for only one group, whichever that group is.

Col. 3:22-25 tells the 'slaves' specifically, to serve your slave masters as hard as they can in everything. Surely, it is common knowledge that a free person is not told to serve any human master in everything, right?

It wasn't common knowledge to Paul who said, For you were called to freedom, brothers and sisters, only do not use your freedom as an opportunity to indulge your flesh, but through love serve one another. (Galatians 5). There are plenty of other verses indicating that we are to serve/help others. It is a huge part of the Christian message that we demonstrate our faith in acts of love and service.

Col. 4:1 tells the slave masters to treat their slaves "right' and 'fair'. But the Bible has already established that the slave is to obey the master in everything, and the slave master is the judge of their slave's obedience. The Bible also goes out of it's way, long before, to assure the reader that a 'slave' is his master's property.

I think you have missed something here. The instructions to both slaves and masters are to Christian slaves and Christian masters. If they are not Christians, then none of this applies. The Christian slave serves a non-Christian master as though he were serving God. The Christian master treats all their slaves in the way that they wish to be treated by God, whether they are believers or not. The Ephesians version of the same rules explicitly link the two together 'in the same way' so it is clear that the purpose is the furthering of the kingdom of God.

Col. 4:2-6 does not again mention the 'slaves' specifically. Sure, the classified slaves could surely decide to follow such Verse, but it will not change the 'slaves' assigned situation... That they are to obey their lifetime slave masters in everything

Correct. Job for life. I think that in these trying times there would be plenty would love for such an outcome.

 

[cvanwey]

Whatever it is you are trying to convey here is lost on me.

In regards to the topic of slavery, it seems there is much that is "lost on you".

My message here is simple... The Bible does not have a unified section, for His obvious provided guided slavery practices. It is up to the reader to put them all together.

When the Bible is addressing 'correct slavery practices', you know the Bible is doing so, because the Bible is sure to make pretty clear distinctions between the free and the enslaved. When the Bible is speaking about slaves, the Bible expresses so. The rules are not the same, between the "slaves" and the free.

Since you clearly avoid many of my direct responses, I'll recap for you:

The Bible provides the following hierarchy. I could break it down even further, but this will do, to get my point across:

God > free humans > volunteer servant humans > enslaved humans > animals

The Bible instructs that all ultimately answer to God. That's clearly understood. However, the Bible also provides a pecking order (as listed above) --- working your way up to God. So here's the question(s)?

1. Aside from God, whom does the 'slave' also answer to, in everything, for life?
2. If the slave master deems the 'slave' disobedient, what is a justifiable recourse, as furnished in Exodus 21:20-21?
3. If the "slave" is injured, but recovers from this beating with all his/her eyes and teeth intact, does the slave get to seek retribution, like a free person may by law? And if the slave is to loose an eye, does the slave master loose an eye?
4. If a "slave" is to give birth, whom does the slave's child belong to, for life?
5. Is the slave master allowed to sell this 'slave's' offspring?

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Well thanks for the debate. I don't think we will get anywhere further. I will say that it is a good thing that you think slavery is wrong and that God thinks it is wrong, I just think that you are blinded to what the Bible says because of this belief. There are many Christians that realize that the bible does support slavery and have simply denied that those scriptures are from God and were written by men. I think this is the best option for Christians.

It undermines God to do so, but that is their prerogative.

Ultimately it comes down to the way you approach the Torah on the subject.

When I first became a Christian and read these books I struggled to understand it, primarily because I was reading the laws in a piecemeal fashion (or nodding off trying to read them as a whole). It didn't help that I read them with the cultural baggage of the Atlantic Slave Trade as a backdrop, so like you I hated reading about slaves being beaten or sold.

But as time has gone on and I have more knowledge, not just of the Bible as a whole, but also the cultural background of the Ancient Near East I have revised my view on the purposes of the law and see the bigger picture. The Hebrew way of doing things was intensely liberating, fair and encouraged everyone towards knowledge of God and better relationships with each other. The kind of practices of kidnap, rape torture, murder etc. would have all been ruthlessly stamped out in Hebrew society and there was no such thing as homeless or jobless.

Something to be commended - if we could only overcome the cultural differences and see at least the benefits of their intent, even if the practice was somewhat lacking.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Pastor Warren did using the Bible as was shown.

I didn't ask what Pastor Warren thought, I asked what you thought of Warren's reasoning. Do you agree with it - is he correct?

If we can both agree he is wrong and that his views are not representative of the wider Christian theology on the subject then we can just ignore it and get on with more productive discussions.

But if you think that this is reasonable then you have to be more convincing than 'what he says'.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I didn't ask what Pastor Warren thought, I asked what you thought of Warren's reasoning. Do you agree with it - is he correct?

If we can both agree he is wrong and that his views are not representative of the wider Christian theology on the subject then we can just ignore it and get on with more productive discussions.

But if you think that this is reasonable then you have to be more convincing than 'what he says'.

But this is not the point. The claim was made that a case cannot be made, Warren made a case using the bible to do it. Why would God allow this? The case could not be made if there were clear statements in the bible condemning slavery. There is not. Leviticus says you can kill people that commit homosexual acts. Maybe God should have said to kill people that make slaves of others. That would have cleared things up.

 

[cvanwey]

You are correct that it mentions slaves and free, but it also mentions Greek and Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian and ends with slave or free. Had this just been about slaves and free, then you would be correct, but it is not - it is about breaking down distinctions as can be seen from the way it ends: but Christ is all and in all.

As explained in post #724, God provides a pecking order. Everyone ultimately answers to God. But the 'slaves' also answer to their human masters, in everything; as also instructed by God apparently.

Here you are wrong. The passage that follows up until verse 17 is addressed to 'the elect of God, holy and dearly loved'. There is nothing to indicate that this is for only one group, whichever that group is.

Rules differ for the slaves. Otherwise, God would not go out of His way to mention special considerations/rules for the 'slaves'.

It wasn't common knowledge to Paul who said, For you were called to freedom, brothers and sisters, only do not use your freedom as an opportunity to indulge your flesh, but through love serve one another. (Galatians 5). There are plenty of other verses indicating that we are to serve/help others. It is a huge part of the Christian message that we demonstrate our faith in acts of love and service.

God specifically tells the 'slaves' to serve and obey their slave masters in everything. Is this message a two-way street? Meaning, is the slave master also suppose to obey and serve the slave in the same way? Of course not.

I think you have missed something here. The instructions to both slaves and masters are to Christian slaves and Christian masters. If they are not Christians, then none of this applies. The Christian slave serves a non-Christian master as though he were serving God. The Christian master treats all their slaves in the way that they wish to be treated by God, whether they are believers or not. The Ephesians version of the same rules explicitly link the two together 'in the same way' so it is clear that the purpose is the furthering of the kingdom of God.

Then God would not go out of His way to express that beating your slaves is not be punished in any way, because the slave is their property.

BTW, of course it would be the Christian whom invokes such rules. They are the ones reading and following the Bible's instructions. And the instructions are clear...

You may buy, sell, keep, and beat slaves. You may also treat them as property, for life. And also, as instructed, the slaves are to obey in everything, or else a justified beating is 'right and fair' --- as instructed by the pages of the Bible.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

How is the above any different than what you are doing in this entire thread? You claim the Bible does not support the antebellum slave trade, when it clearly does.

What the Bible does is support a form of slavery, but one that bears no resemblance to the Torah version of slavery/servitude. It bears little resemblance to even the Roman version of slavery that the New Testament writers were familiar with.

The Bible instructs that a slave master may buy slaves from the nations around them, for life, and also treat them as property -- (as long as they are not an Israelite). Lev. 25

But Exodus 21:16 establishes that these people could not be kidnapped or compelled into their service else the buyer was under a death sentence. Since the Atlantic Slave Trade was ALL about kidnapping and compelling people into slavery, all engaged in the practice whether the trader or the buyer was under a sentence of death according to the same laws you quote.

The Bible instructs that a slave master may beat their slave(s), just short of death, with complete impunity -- (because the slave is their property). The Bible does not really give a distinct guide as to what warrants a beating --- (stay tuned). Ex. 21

Nowhere is there an instruction for slave masters to beat their slaves just short of death, impunity or otherwise. The verse you quote is not an instruction, since it starts with an obvious qualifier IF.

Instructions don't have qualifiers they just are, like 'do not murder' and so on.

Later on, the Bible then tells it's readers that a slave is to obey their slave masters in everything. Col. 3

Thus, the Bible establishes that God is a-okay with life time slavery. God is also a-okay with beating your slaves. God is further a-okay with telling the slaves to obey their slave masters in everything.

The Bible does establish that God is okay with lifetime slavery (though Jubilee is always a cut-off point). It also establishes that God is okay with telling slaves to obey their masters. 'everything' might be overstating it, since Colossians also states to do it with a sincere heart, fearing the Lord. Like obeying the God-given government, Christians serve God first and foremost and everyone else secondarily - so masters or governments that called for ungodly acts could be reasonably disobeyed.

And to get back to the Verse for which you want to now polarize...

"Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven."

What is 'right and fair' is that a 'slave' is to remain subservient to his human master in everything. And if (s)he does not, then what is "right and fair", is his/her master's justified and deemed wrath -- (as already noted in Ex. 21).

I don't want to polarise it, I want it rightfully included as part of the equation, because it is. It is an instruction to the masters of slaves (and not a conditional statement).

What is right and fair is exactly what God thinks is right and fair not what is his/her master's justified and deemed wrath.

Consider the Philemon/Onesimus case as an example of this. It is right and fair that he is punished for theft and running away, but it is also right and fair that Onisemus is shown mercy in the same way that God is showing Philemon mercy.

If Philemon punishes Onisimus then he too is going to expect punishment (cf the familiar words from the Sermon on the Mount Matthew 6:14), but other than that Philemon could be right in freeing Onisemus or continuing to hold him as a slave. There is no compulsion beyond the realisation that what he metes out will be meted out to him by God.

All that can be said is that the Bible support slavery, but of a completely different type to that as displayed in the Atlantic Slave Trade and beyond.

 

[cvanwey]

What the Bible does is support a form of slavery, but one that bears no resemblance to the Torah version of slavery/servitude. It bears little resemblance to even the Roman version of slavery that the New Testament writers were familiar with.

Yes it does support antebellum slavery practices. Preamble -- (a "volunteer servant" and a "slave" are not the same thing, right?)...

Please answer my (5) questions to demonstrate -- (paraphrased from post #724):

1. Aside from God, whom does the 'slave', (not the volunteer), also answer to, in everything, for life?
2. If the slave master deems the 'slave' disobedient, what is the slave master's justifiable recourse?
3. If the "slave" is injured, but recovers from this beating with all his/her eyes and teeth intact, does the slave get to seek retribution against his/her slave master, like a free person may be able to do by law? And if the 'slave' is to loose an eye, is the slave master also instructed to loose an eye?
4. If a "slave", (not a volunteer), gives birth, whom does the slave's child belong to, for life?
5. Is the slave master allowed to sell this 'slave's', (not the volunteer), offspring?

Answer key below, per the Bible:

1. the slave master
2. A beating is okay by God, and not considered 'wrong' by God.
3. The slave can seek no retribution, because (s)he is a 'slave'. At best, the slave goes free if his/her eye/teeth get removed.
4. The slave master owns the slave's offspring, as property, for life.
5. Yes, because the 'slave' is his property. The Bible tells it's readers that humans may buy slaves; which means slave sales must then take place.

But Exodus 21:16 establishes that these people could not be kidnapped or compelled into their service else the buyer was under a death sentence. Since the Atlantic Slave Trade was ALL about kidnapping and compelling people into slavery, all engaged in the practice whether the trader or the buyer was under a sentence of death according to the same laws you quote.

I've already addressed this time and time again. The laws differ between the free and a slave. A confirmed slave is not kidnapped, they are sold. But let me play devil's advocate here. Let me concede everything you just said.

You have yet to acknowledge the bred slaves I'm sure you are aware that many were born into slavery, right? According to the Bible, these folks are their slave master's property, for life. Antebellum slavery could still function, perfectly as well, if slave traders were only allowed to buy/sell the bred slaves. And since antebellum slavery was in existence for centuries, many of those slaves were simply born into this situation. At which point, these individuals are told to obey their slave masters in everything. Which would obviously include not running way Unless you are under the impression the master never told the slave "don't run away"?

Nowhere is there an instruction for slave masters to beat their slaves just short of death, impunity or otherwise. The verse you quote is not an instruction, since it starts with an obvious qualifier IF.

You are too funny Let's see how the IF applies, in context.

"Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property."

We have (2) if's here.

The first if pertains to if the slave dies, the slave master is to be punished. We are not sure of the "punishment"...? Maybe death, maybe a whipping, maybe a fine, maybe other --- doesn't really matter.

The second if references what is to happen to the slave master if the slave recovers from their beating. The answer is nothing. Why? ...Because the slave is deemed the master's property by God.

I already addressed what you are saying here. The Bible is not telling you that you must beat your slaves. I'm saying God grants allowances, as to what you can and cannot do to your slaves. Beating them, with virtual impunity, is obviously not a sin in God's eye's.

Instructions don't have qualifiers they just are, like 'do not murder' and so on.

No instruction exists, which states "humans cannot own other humans as property." However, instructions exist to the contrary. "You may buy/sell/beat/own humans as property, for life." If the Bible stated you "may not buy/sell/beat/own humans as property, for life", that would also be an instruction.

The Bible does establish that God is okay with lifetime slavery

And you are good with God telling His readers "God is okay with lifetime slavery"????

(though Jubilee is always a cut-off point).

I already addressed this prior. You have a contradiction:

You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life,

VS

“‘Count off seven sabbath years—seven times seven years—so that the seven sabbath years amount to a period of forty-nine years.

Assuming the later overtakes the former, (not sure how you do that exactly); the absolute best a "slave" can hope for is that slaves are released once every 49 years?

Like I also mentioned prior, for which you also never acknowledged... I'm sure you are aware that a "slave's" living conditions were likely inferior to the slave master. If the average human life expectancy of a free person was age ~30, what do you think the "slave's" lifespan was?

It also establishes that God is okay with telling slaves to obey their masters. 'everything' might be overstating it, since Colossians also states to do it with a sincere heart, fearing the Lord. Like obeying the God-given government, Christians serve God first and foremost and everyone else secondarily - so masters or governments that called for ungodly acts could be reasonably disobeyed.

What the heck to you think a 'slave' is exactly?

They are to serve their master. The slave's only job is to serve the slave master. perpetually If the slave master asks the slave to work, whatever that work task may be, they better do it. Otherwise, they are disobeying. And the Bible tells the slave to obey the master in everything. The Bible also warrants slave beatings. "Sincere heart", from the slave's POV, is to serve the master in everything; like the slave might serve the Lord. "So pick that cotton, with a "sincere heart", or fear the sanctioned wrath."

I'm sorry if the Bible seems clumsy here. That's your 'cross to bear". The Bible references the 'slaves' as the master's property.

I don't want to polarise it, I want it rightfully included as part of the equation, because it is. It is an instruction to the masters of slaves (and not a conditional statement).

What is right and fair is exactly what God thinks is right and fair not what is his/her master's justified and deemed wrath.

God says it Himself. "Slaves, serve your masters in everything." Surely, even with common sense, this would include telling the slave to work work work, and do not run. And if you do not work to my perpetual standards, I can justify beating you. Right?

All that can be said is that the Bible support slavery, but of a completely different type to that as displayed in the Atlantic Slave Trade and beyond.

As long as you apply cognitive dissonance I guess

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

All that can be said is that the Bible support slavery, but of a completely different type to that as displayed in the Atlantic Slave Trade and beyond.

Even if the masters are the most caring of their slaves it is still immoral to own other people as property. This is the bottom line that you admitted the Bible supports.

Would you be my salve under the rules of the bible?

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

@Silly Uncle Wayne , cvanwey is quite correct here. It seems clear that you have two ideas clearly in your head: one, that slavery is a bad thing; and two, that the Bible is a good one. Therefore, the Bible must be against slavery. You have argued for this at considerable length. Except, confusingly, you also maintain that the Bible is neutral on the question of slavery! Please try to get your story straight.

I'll reply to the points you've made, but there is one thing I'd like to point out first: you have not engaged Pastor Warren's arguments at all. I'd very much like to see you try to do so - and, if you can't, to admit it.

Just to be clear - I can engage with the arguments, but what is the point of doing so. I already know I can engage with them, that they are not representative of Christianity as a whole. Nothing will change that.

What I want to know is why you think that this IS representative of the Christian stance on slavery. Why is it that we are not still owning slaves in the western world 160 years later, why is it that Christians, convinced by their reading of scripture that Atlantic Slave Trade had to stop and slaves had to be freed (and paid a lot of money to do so in some cases).

The reason I ask is that there is enough going on here without me wasting my time on responding to what most Christians will find obvious failings in Warren's arguments. What does it gain? You don't think the Atlantic slave trade was warranted, nor do I, so where is the disagreement?

 

[cvanwey]

Just to be clear - I can engage with the arguments, but what is the point of doing so. I already know I can engage with them, that they are not representative of Christianity as a whole. Nothing will change that.

What I want to know is why you think that this IS representative of the Christian stance on slavery. Why is it that we are not still owning slaves in the western world 160 years later, why is it that Christians, convinced by their reading of scripture that Atlantic Slave Trade had to stop and slaves had to be freed (and paid a lot of money to do so in some cases).

The reason I ask is that there is enough going on here without me wasting my time on responding to what most Christians will find obvious failings in Warren's arguments. What does it gain? You don't think the Atlantic slave trade was warranted, nor do I, so where is the disagreement?

Your argument is that the Bible cannot be used to justify the antebellum slave trade. But it can. See post #730, just for starters. You just refuse to acknowledge it, by continuing to double-down; or to present continued sidebars.

And "Why is it that we are not still owning slaves in the western world 160 years later"?

For some of the same reasons women's rights and gay marriage became a thing, I'd reckon.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

I think the clearest proof that Pastor Warren made a strong case for slavery being based on the Christian religion is that you are clearly unwilling to engage with his arguments.

Are you calling me a coward?

Pistols at dawn.

No the only reason why I am am unwilling to engage with the arguments is that it serves no purpose as far as I can see.

Firstly it should be obvious that Warren's words are empty of substance as if they were, all Christians would back them up wholeheartedly and this would not be an issue for any Christian. Clearly that is not the case, so equally clearly this is in no way representative of the bulk of Christianity.

Secondly, even if I did go through the sermon section by sections showing what he got right and what he left out to help justify his views. What he got wrong, particularly with regards to Hebrew servanthood, what would it benefit? Would you then be convinced by Christianity? Would you then think the Atlantic Slave Trade is wrong - but you already think that.

So I ask again what is the purpose of engaging with Warren? Why do YOU think that he is the arbiter of Christian truth and all those who wrote before and after were wrong? If we can establish that then we can either put the whole thing behind us as 'not Christian' or determine what exactly about his writings appeal to you and convince you that slavery is correct?

If you really want to know the truth of what the Bible says about slavery, read it. The whole thing - God's redemptive plan; Israel's role in it; Jesus's sacrifice for all people and Paul's encouragement to all believers. Read it not to justify a particular viewpoint, but to understand what viewpoint it actually represents. Don't read it having already made up your mind what it says (e.g. encouragement to beat slaves). It becomes clearer the more you do it (it took me about 15 years to be fair).

If you just want to see why the Atlantic Slavel trade is wrong, I refer you to another thread where I lay the whole thing out, covering EVERY relevant verse of the Torah as well as a number of New Testament verses that have relevance too (I.e more than Warren). Before you continue to accuse me of unwillingness to engage with Warren, read my critique and compare it to your knowledge of the Atlantic Slave trade and ask yourself why is Warren's view more accurate than mine (or any other Christian author that has engaged in the topic such as Christopher Wright, Paul Copan, John Walton and many others). if there is anything left over from that comparison, I'd be happy to talk it through.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

But this is not the point. The claim was made that a case cannot be made, Warren made a case using the bible to do it. Why would God allow this? The case could not be made if there were clear statements in the bible condemning slavery. There is not. Leviticus says you can kill people that commit homosexual acts. Maybe God should have said to kill people that make slaves of others. That would have cleared things up.

Your reference to homosexual acts is correct. This is quite clear and yet there are Christians who continue to justify their acts as though God got it wrong.

Clearly (no pun intended), being clear isn't a barrier to get people to follow God's ways. And God did make a a very clear statement to kill people that make slaves of others. You even mention it in your opening post, so I know you've read it: Whoever kidnaps someone and sells him, or is caught still holding him, must surely be put to death.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Just to be clear - I can engage with the arguments,

That’s great to hear. I look forward to it. I see you have some doubts about doing so, so I shall do my best to allay them.

I can engage with the arguments, but what is the point of doing so. I already know I can engage with them, that they are not representative of Christianity as a whole. Nothing will change that.

I’m sure you just mean that you think you are sure of your views. Perhaps you should say something like, "I am sure I can engage with them, though I am willing to change my mind if the evidence warrants it. I do not expect that it will, though."
And the point of engaging with the argument is so that you can disprove it. That’s what we’re both here for.

What I want to know is why you think that this IS representative of the Christian stance on slavery.

A few points:
Consider where we are. This is a forum in which non-Christians are invited to present arguments that challenge ideas in Christian thought, and Christians are invited to defend their religion with logical arguments. Almost nothing we say to you is “representative of Christian thought.” Whywould that make you refuse to answer it?
Second, I’m here on this thread to present my reasons for why I believe the Bible endorses slavery. If I were to state those reasons, they would simply echo what Pastor Warren says. If I do that, and state the arguments on my own account, will you be more willing to debate them? Or will you refuse, simply because most Christians don’t agree with my interpretation of the Bible? Since this is the case with virtually every topic raised on these forums, I’m sure you’ll agree it would not make sense for you to do this.
Third, you are quite mistaken if you think these views are non-mainstream. While it’s true that most Christians today deny – in the face of the evidence, I might add – that the Bible condones slavery, there have been plenty of Christians in the past who accepted this. Slavery has been both supported and opposed by Christians on many occasions throughout the past two thousand years (beginning, of course, with the support for it in the Bible itself, as cvanwey, Clizby Wampus Cat and I have demonstrated). For example, you may wish to peruse, at your convenience, this address, of 1838, by the Reverend Doctor Furman, President of the Baptist State Convention (Furman University: Richard Furman's Exposition) or this discourse, by Pastor Wilson, of 1861 (Joseph Ruggles Wilson, 1835-1903. Mutual R elation of Masters and Slaves as Taught in the Bible: a Discourse Preached in the First Presbyterian Church ... ). Both of them make clear and compelling cases, much along the same lines as Pastor Warren – that, when you read the Bible as a whole and complete document, the various references to slavery align with the course and themes of the Biblical events to show that slavery is a natural part of God’s plan for human society. If you would care to address Pastor Warren’s points, in my previous post, I would be happy to show you why this is so.

Why is it that we are not still owning slaves in the western world 160 years later, why is it that Christians, convinced by their reading of scripture that Atlantic Slave Trade had to stop and slaves had to be freed (and paid a lot of money to do so in some cases).

Simple enough. The abolitionist Christians were unable to win the war on slavery by arguments – naturally enough, as the Bible was on the side of the pro-slavery Christians. But they were able to win an actual war, and so slavery was outlawed. People then came to feel that slavery was wrong, either because it is an immoral practice or, rather less creditably, because it was punishable under the law, and so Christians swung to the anti-slavery side and convinced themselves that because God was good and slavery bad, God must be against slavery. No matter what it says in the Bible.

The reason I ask is that there is enough going on here without me wasting my time on responding to what most Christians will find obvious failings in Warren's arguments.

I’ve never encountered a Christian who could do that. If you check the earlier pages of this thread – which is now, I think, about a year old – you’ll see another Christian who said that Pastor Warren’s views were ridiculous, absurd, downright immoral. He wasn’t able to disprove them. Perhaps you can?

What does it gain? You don't think the Atlantic slave trade was warranted, nor do I, so where is the disagreement?

No, of course I don’t think the Atlantic slave trade, or the system of slavery in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, were moral systems. We agree on that. But I firmly believe, based on the evidence, that the Bible is in favour of slavery as an institution.
So what would it gain, if you could prove me wrong? I would change my views and acknowledge to the world that I was mistaken. I probably wouldn’t become a Christian – not as the result of this particular debate – but I would be willing to say, “Yes, I was wrong, the Bible is opposed to slavery.”
Would you also be willing to make an honest admission if you lost this debate, and it was demonstrated that the Bible is indeed a pro-slavery document?

Are you calling me a coward?
Pistols at dawn.

How about we fight it out in a more civilized manner – here, on this thread, as a debate, under the rules of the forum?

No the only reason why I am am unwilling to engage with the arguments is that it serves no purpose as far as I can see.

What any other person who reads this thread will see – including, perhaps, impressionable young Christians – is an atheist who contends that the Bible supports the immoral institution of slavery, and a Christian who is either unwilling or unable to defend Christianity against this challenge. That's probably not a result that you want. So the purpose of your disputing Pastor Warren's arguments would be for you to show that the challenge to Christianity - at least as most Christians today understand it - can indeed be rebutted by something stronger than "that just can't be true!".

If you really want to know the truth of what the Bible says about slavery, read it. The whole thing - God's redemptive plan; Israel's role in it; Jesus's sacrifice for all people and Paul's encouragement to all believers.

I have read it. The message is clear. The Bible is pro-slavery.

Read it not to justify a particular viewpoint, but to understand what viewpoint it actually represents. Don't read it having already made up your mind what it says (e.g. encouragement to beat slaves). It becomes clearer the more you do it (it took me about 15 years to be fair).

I’m not reading the Bible to justify a particular viewpoint. I could care less what the Bible says about slavery. All I do is read what it says, and take it at its word. If it turns out the Bible isn't actually pro-slavery - well, I might be a bit embarrassed to be proven wrong, who wouldn't be? But it wouldn't really mean anything to me.
You, on the other hand, do have an investment in this. Assuming you believe that God is good and that slavery is bad, then for you, it would be a bad thing if God were shown to be acting immorally. So which of us is really handicapped by a bias?

If you just want to see why the Atlantic Slavel trade is wrong, I refer you to another thread where I lay the whole thing out, covering EVERY relevant verse of the Torah as well as a number of New Testament verses that have relevance too (I.e more than Warren).

If you’d like to give a link to this thread, I’d be happy to read it. But Warren has still addressed the main point of this thread in a clear argument designed to prove exactly the point we are discussing – is slavery supported by the Bible – and I would like to see you try to disprove him.

Your reference to homosexual acts is correct. This is quite clear and yet there are Christians who continue to justify their acts as though God got it wrong. Clearly (no pun intended), being clear isn't a barrier to get people to follow God's ways.

In fact, your argument here works against you. Yes, you’re quite right. The Bible clearly says one thing, and yet there are Christians who will disbelieve it because it doesn’t align with their morality. “God is good,” they say, “and slavery is bad. Therefore God must be against slavery. And when He said in the Bible that you should buy slaves from countries around you, and keep them and their children in perpetuity, and that you could beat them as much as you like…well, there must be some other explanation for that. It couldn’t be that God is actually in favour of slavery. That just doesn’t make sense!”

And God did make a a very clear statement to kill people that make slaves of others. You even mention it in your opening post, so I know you've read it: Whoever kidnaps someone and sells him, or is caught still holding him, must surely be put to death.

Wayne, you really need to read these things and think about them carefully. You mustn’t just grab a verse which superficially supports your case.
Does it make sense for the Bible to say that it’s okay to take slaves from the peoples around you, but that anyone who takes a slave will be executed? No? Well, there’s a simple answer. The passage you are quoting is referring to Israelites among Israelites. It is not referring to taking slaves from foreigners, but rather that any Israelite who tries to kidnap and enslave any other Israelite shall be regarded as a criminal. This is one of the clear themes in the Bible – one set of rules for God’s chosen people and another set of rules for dealing with others.

And now that we’ve gone through all of this – would you be willing to address Pastor Warren’s arguments?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

It is NOT possible to justify the Atlantic Slave Trade using the Whole Bible

Pastor Warren did as InterestedAtheist pointed out. I will point out that people are using the bible today to advocate for modern slavery as well. They could not do this if the Bible had a clear statement that slavery was wrong or to not own other people as property.

About – Slavery Advocate

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Pastor Warren did as InterestedAtheist pointed out. I will point out that people are using the bible today to advocate for modern slavery as well. They could not do this if the Bible had a clear statement that slavery was wrong or to not own other people as property.

About – Slavery Advocate

Where are people using the bible today to advocate for modern slavery? The site you cite (!) is sadly pro-slavery (colour me surprised) but I saw no reference to the Bible in any of the articles I took a look at.

And this person is clearly a minority, long may it remain that way.

I've come across weird people in the past on a variety of subjects, but they are weird for a reason - they are a drop in the ocean. We should only worry about them if they become a current.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Where are people using the bible today to advocate for modern slavery? The site you cite (!) is sadly pro-slavery (colour me surprised) but I saw no reference to the Bible in any of the articles I took a look at.

Look under proslavery religions on top.

And this person is clearly a minority, long may it remain that way.

I've come across weird people in the past on a variety of subjects, but they are weird for a reason - they are a drop in the ocean. We should only worry about them if they become a current.

Like in 1861? Lets not wait until they are the majority.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Look under proslavery religions on top.

Thanks, I missed that... but did you actually look there yourself?

Pro slavery Bible verses - not surprising given the subject matter, but if you look through this, it is clearly a case of cherry-picking verses to support an argument, rather than engaging with all the verses on the subject.

Pro slavery Christian books - the most recent book given was published in 1864. It wouldn't even be modern had it been published in 1964! This isn't 'modern slavery'

Pro slavery Christian sermons - here the most recent is 1861, again this is not modern.

Pro slavery religious articles - we are up to 1903 now, and an article about negroes! No idea what it says, but the likelihood that the author is still around to defend his views is extremely slim.

Pro slavery Christian quotes - Again, there appears to be nothing that is actually modern at all (there is even a quote from Augustine of Hippo).

There is nothing here about any Christian advocating slavery in the modern world. At best it is an advocate of slavery trying to use Christianity to bolster their views. (read the about blurb and it is clear that the author is not motivated by a Christian faith).