Slavery IS Regulated in the Bible!

[Eloy Craft]

If this were the case, then God/Jesus would have ordered slavery to be abolished at some point. But He doesn't. You appear to be projecting your own wishful thinking.

First off my friend, God doesn't will slavery He only permits it. Imagine pronouncing with authority that an institution of society entrenched for centuries is without excuses a deadly sin. You would be making generations of people culpable for sin that they weren't culpable for. So, it's not that simple.

Furthermore, you are projecting a modern concept of slavery onto the forms of it in the past. Choosing a particular race of human beings to be property is unprecedented in history. The moral depravity of that kind of slavery is as well. That's what we think of as slavery nowadays. Much of what was called slavery in the past is what we would call employment.

God does not define what a slave is and is not. All forms of slavery appear acceptable. And again, God never places a ban on slavery, even in the NT.

Once an enemy population within a society exists it must become a part of the economy. Once that population becomes an integral part of the society it can only be regulated until the prevailing mind of the captor society has developed a morality and formed a conscience that allows them to sacrifice the common order that has served them for generations or even a millenia or two. Even then there will be war. The thread title describes a good of God. The captors are regulated by law.

Again, slavery is not defined. According to the Bible, if slavery was again legalized today, according to God, it is not sin. God is okay with slavery, in practically any form.

That to you it's not defined in the bible means the modern and most hideous form wasn't even conceivable to the sacred authors. There are modern forms of slavery now like the sex trade. God ok with that? Could there be a part we all play in that kind of slavery?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Ok...you see yourself as immune to normal human thinking processes that because we have viewpoints we have biases, but you see the 2 of you as not having that? Or having an fantastic objectivity that is just above others? Ok.... That's just where you are at, in your self view. I remember thinking like that once.

Halbhh, that was patronising. And it was incorrect.
Think of it like this: a murder has been committed. The murderer has been caught, the police have enough evidence to bring him to trial. At the trial, it is discovered that the murderer is in fact an old friend of the judge. Is it fair for the judge to recuse himself? Should they bring in a new judge, who isn't connected to the man on trial?
By your argument, we could just say "Well, everyone has their own biases. Surely it's impossible to say that the new judge has never, in any way at all, had any contact, or been influenced in any way by the defendant?"
But people would rightly say that was silly. And so is this case. You're a Christian. You have positive feelings towards God. You have a bias. I and cvanwey, on the other hand, are neutral. See? This isn't a legal trial, so of course you're allowed to say whatever you like; but it's a simple fact that you are biased in this case, and we're not.

Agree. --> Philemon. It's a surprising letter really. But it's also inevitable in the end, because of Matthew 7:12.
And also we hear Christ Himself using the mistreatment of slaves -- to "beat slaves" -- as the epitome for all abuse, as the metaphor for all wrongdoing against other people.

You've been corrected on both of these before. Philemon is not an argument against slavery, and Jesus was talking about slaves abusing their position, not about slaves being beaten. Both of your points simply fall to the ground.

Ah. Did you anywhere about anything? If so, that's great.
If not, why not? (and in that case, is it that you have nothing you can learn from us?...that'd be sorta sad I think)

Not every question has two sides. One side can be right and one side can be wrong.

Yet another recounting of how whatever preacher had justified some wrongdoing by a very prejudiced and filtering use of scripture?....

Hmmmm....seems a common thing, to take some scriptures and ignore other passages which contradict it, to reach a preferred viewpoint of scripture, and then preach that.

We see that constantly.

I doubt there was ever any time it has not happened.

I don't even blame atheists for when they do the same thing. I see them as stuck in an idea, an ideology, which can be a powerful block to learning.

That, I'm afraid, is pure projection. Christianity is an ideology about God; atheism is nothing more than the lack of it. As a Christian, you love God; therefore, of course it's going to be hard to bring yourself to see that He supported slavery.
The Christians who believed that slavery was right and just and ordained by God were wrong on the first point, wrong on the second point, and spot-on on the third. And they had the Bible verses to back them up. They won the argument so decidedly that the only way the abolitionists could beat them is with an army.

Like murder?

Like slanders/false witnesses against other people (say, like we get today often by tweets?).....?

Actually, this is the most interesting and encouraging thing you've said in a way.

You are asking in effect: Why didn't Evil end?

See, human evil continues unabated generally in the world.

Why didn't it end?

It's individual. Conscience and choices are individual.

Some will follow Christ, and many will not, He told us:

It's surprisingly direct, as He said it:

Luke 18:19 "Why do you call Me good?" Jesus replied. "No one is good except God alone.
and
11 If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! 12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. 13 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."
Matthew 7 NIV

See, what Christ actually said is very radical, and it's still radical, today.

Can you imagine if you were a religious leader, and this guy came saying you were evil....?

He knew perfectly well they would hate him vastly for his words, and seek his death.

Like Martin Luther King, Jr., who foresaw his own likely death but continued, knowing the value of the ultimate goal -- but moreso, Christ knew for a certainty, and had an even more ultimate goal.

To save us from ourselves, one person at a time, here and there, who would actually follow him and actually change.

I think we'd better leave the sermons. It looks like you want to talk about anything in this discussion on slavery, except for what the Bible says about it. This is quite natural; the verses are unanswerable.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

First off my friend, God doesn't will slavery He only permits it. Imagine pronouncing with authority that an institution of society entrenched for centuries is without excuses a deadly sin. You would be making generations of people culpable for sin that they weren't culpable for. So, it's not that simple.

Furthermore, you are projecting a modern concept of slavery onto the forms of it in the past. Choosing a particular race of human beings to be property is unprecedented in history. The moral depravity of that kind of slavery is as well. That's what we think of as slavery nowadays. Much of what was called slavery in the past is what we would call employment.

Once an enemy population within a society exists it must become a part of the economy. Once that population becomes an integral part of the society it can only be regulated until the prevailing mind of the captor society has developed a morality and formed a conscience that allows them to sacrifice the common order that has served them for generations or even a millenia or two. Even then there will be war. The thread title describes a good of God. The captors are regulated by law.

That to you it's not defined in the bible means the modern and most hideous form wasn't even conceivable to the sacred authors. There are modern forms of slavery now like the sex trade. God ok with that? Could there be a part we all play in that kind of slavery?

Poor God. He really is incredibly limited. In the good old days, he would flood worlds, burn cities, kill every first born son whenever peoples did things that offended Him. Now, he's just incapable.
I think this article makes the point quite well:

"...can God be constrained by the social conditions of the moment? God didn’t feel bound by the status quo when he introduced the Ten Commandments, with the death penalty backing most of them. Whether it was convenient or not for stick collection on the Sabbath to suddenly become a capital crime (Numbers 15:32–6) didn’t bother God.

What do we do then? What do we make of this conflict between the obvious wrongness of slavery and the obvious support of slavery in the Bible? Should we just presuppose God and then figure that he has his own good reasons for acting in a way that, in any other situation, you’d call “immoral”? Or should we drop any special pleading and evaluate the Bible as we would any other claimed moral source? I’m certain (Christians) wouldn’t take this approach to avoid critique of any other holy book."

 

[Norbert L]

I mean, God allows slavery, now and always. Do you agree or disagree?

if you speak specifically about a topic, while also having the power to order the disallowance of it, and do not abolish it, then you allow it.

In regards to now and always, have you talked to Jesus face to face recently? We're dealing with His actions taken thousands of years ago where decisions were made about slavery and give them human rights. You might not agree with them however you and I were not there and nowhere familiar enough with the day to day issues of an ancient civilization. So no you are wrong about now and always. Thus it would be foolish of me to agree or disagree with such a challenge, it's just wrong.

However I would speculate that if human civilization were to fall again dramatically, we would again see mankind adopt the institution of slavery. There has been certain news reporting by journalists I've seen on YouTube about slavery still existing in very small pockets of the world today. It should make people wonder about why but I think in general most people have enough on their plate already.

Which brings to mind, having read much of what we've gone over on this topic. There's a young YouTuber who is a Christian apologist who has recently released some videos directly dealing with this topic. He has a way of refuting this topic that is very persuasive. Given the ease to use that media can you offer a reply video?. Otherwise we're just starting to rehash a topic and start writing over and over again the same talking points.

 

[Halbhh]

Halbhh, that was patronising. And it was incorrect.
Think of it like this: a murder has been committed. The murderer has been caught, the police have enough evidence to bring him to trial. At the trial, it is discovered that the murderer is in fact an old friend of the judge. Is it fair for the judge to recuse himself? Should they bring in a new judge, who isn't connected to the man on trial?
By your argument, we could just say "Well, everyone has their own biases. Surely it's impossible to say that the new judge has never, in any way at all, had any contact, or been influenced in any way by the defendant?"
But people would rightly say that was silly. And so is this case. You're a Christian. You have positive feelings towards God. You have a bias. I and cvanwey, on the other hand, are neutral. See? This isn't a legal trial, so of course you're allowed to say whatever you like; but it's a simple fact that you are biased in this case, and we're not.


You've been corrected on both of these before. Philemon is not an argument against slavery, and Jesus was talking about slaves abusing their position, not about slaves being beaten. Both of your points simply fall to the ground.


Not every question has two sides. One side can be right and one side can be wrong.


That, I'm afraid, is pure projection. Christianity is an ideology about God; atheism is nothing more than the lack of it. As a Christian, you love God; therefore, of course it's going to be hard to bring yourself to see that He supported slavery.
The Christians who believed that slavery was right and just and ordained by God were wrong on the first point, wrong on the second point, and spot-on on the third. And they had the Bible verses to back them up. They won the argument so decidedly that the only way the abolitionists could beat them is with an army.


I think we'd better leave the sermons. It looks like you want to talk about anything in this discussion on slavery, except for what the Bible says about it. This is quite natural; the verses are unanswerable.

I'll PM you with helpful advice.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I'll PM you with helpful advice.

Thank you. Most people could probably benefit from your with suggestion.

 

[cvanwey]

It's only making me smile you think you could trip me up with a personal insult.

Not trying to 'trip you up' with anything. I'm just observing clearly what you are doing. Which is telling. Stay tuned.

If you some day begin to realize the ordinary everyday wrongs you yourself do to others, you could begin to realize it's not enough to just have some finer and more advanced laws (like the Maryland code I quoted to you in posts #217, #218 -- or even the advanced and more ultimate Matthew 7:12 even!

The Maryland code is a human created law. So of course there will be revisions. And please also remember this, which is actually quite relevant to your attempted case...

The laws are not updated because the laws makers were knowingly setting the law one way, to later update it in the future.... They added to (or) amended the rules, as they discovered more reasons for fine tuning it further. It's not like they are trying to purposefully withhold known truths, needed to complete the final law, through progressive updating, in the process.

And like I stated many many many times now. 'Slaves', whatever loose definition (you) wish to apply, are not awarded the same universal rights as free men. Hence, the special considerations explicitly dictated by God Himself. Thus, Matthew 7:12 is not really applicable. Otherwise, God/Jesus would not setup special considerations for slaves specifically. Slaves are property, as dictated by the Holy Bible. Hence, God needed to distinguish what slaves are allowed to do, unlike free men. Such as, i.e. they are still allowed to worship God.

It could be a learning process for instance -- to learn what you don't know. But instead it could be a moment of new understanding without intellectual thought. Either way. Being open to learn is very good. Being modest or humble is very good for learning. What have you got to lose by learning?

Or maybe you could just simply be intellectually honest with yourself, and answer one simple question.

Is it more likely all verses, in reference to slavery, were merely the writings of men? Or, does God actually condone slavery?

If you select the former, that all verses were human inspired, it makes everything about 'slavery' in the Bible fall well into place very quickly. When you read all verses pertaining to this topic, it becomes rather obvious that all verses were either written by slaver owners, or directed by individuals whom were in favor of slave ownership.

If you attempt to apply the later, i.e. they were messages given by God, then you get a mess, at best; with a truckload of attempted Christian apologetics tactics

You may begin someday to realize something further is needed than just some detailed laws about finer points of how to treat others you yourself fail to do -- you may wonder why did Maryland over time need more detailed codes of more and more laws. Perhaps you may realize that people do not follow Matthew 7:12 consistently....

You might eventually realize you need a change inside, something more profound, a way to be changed for the better.

That coming to realize your own faults will help. Then you might begin to realize how much more profound and far reaching the things Jesus said are than we do at first, before we begin to really listen.

In other words, your real battle isn't with me, or some random person, but it's inside, and it's about your own being.

And that's why there is a progression of laws in the Bible, and why Christ came to change us on the inside, in our hearts.

Nothing here requires any need for further response. Please read above, as it is all rinse/repeat.

 

[cvanwey]

First off my friend, God doesn't will slavery He only permits it.

'First off my friend', when did I state God wills or orders for slavery? I'm simply stating He allows for it, without sin.

But really, Is there a difference?

Example... 'Slavery is again legalized in the U.S'.. Sure, God does not command that the U.S. 'make slavery legal.' But, God also does not think it's a sin. Thus, if such authority decided on their own behalf, to again legalize slavery, you could not turn to your God to claim it was 'wrong'.

Furthermore, you are projecting a modern concept of slavery onto the forms of it in the past. Choosing a particular race of human beings to be property is unprecedented in history. The moral depravity of that kind of slavery is as well. That's what we think of as slavery nowadays. Much of what was called slavery in the past is what we would call employment.

I've actually really done no such thing. I only mention trans Alt slavery, as this seems to be the go-to knee jerk response from apologists. However, as I've stated many times, slavery is not well defined. Practically any form of chattle slavery will suffice.

As I responded to another...

standard definition of a chattle slave:

'an enslaved person who is owned for ever and whose children and children's children are automatically enslaved. Chattel slaves are individuals treated as complete property, to be bought and sold. Chattel slavery was supported and made legal by European governments and monarchs.'

Now simply compare as such to:

44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life'

Once an enemy population within a society exists it must become a part of the economy. Once that population becomes an integral part of the society it can only be regulated until the prevailing mind of the captor society has developed a morality and formed a conscience that allows them to sacrifice the common order that has served them for generations or even a millenia or two. Even then there will be war. The thread title describes a good of God. The captors are regulated by law.

This does not address my observation(s). I'll provide it for you again:

'God does not define what a slave is and is not. All forms of slavery appear acceptable. And again, God never places a ban on slavery, even in the NT.'

That to you it's not defined in the bible means the modern and most hideous form wasn't even conceivable to the sacred authors. There are modern forms of slavery now like the sex trade. God ok with that? Could there be a part we all play in that kind of slavery?

I don't think you saw my comments/observations. I will provide it for you again, and underline the key points:

Again, slavery is not defined. According to the Bible, if slavery was again legalized today, according to God, it is not sin. God is okay with slavery, in practically any form.

 

[cvanwey]

In regards to now and always, have you talked to Jesus face to face recently? We're dealing with His actions taken thousands of years ago where decisions were made about slavery and give them human rights. You might not agree with them however you and I were not there and nowhere familiar enough with the day to day issues of an ancient civilization. So no you are wrong about now and always. Thus it would be foolish of me to agree or disagree with such a challenge, it's just wrong.

You turned a one word answer, into a paragraphed, none answer.

Please let me help...

You 'agree' or 'disagree', that God allows for slavery?. Here's a hint to help with the process. Jesus is a-okay with slavery. He does not tell humans not to do it.

However I would speculate that if human civilization were to fall again dramatically, we would again see mankind adopt the institution of slavery. There has been certain news reporting by journalists I've seen on YouTube about slavery still existing in very small pockets of the world today. It should make people wonder about why but I think in general most people have enough on their plate already.

Well, under practically any circumstance, God would not consider it 'wrong'. He may weigh in on a few 'corrective measures', but that's really about it.

Which brings to mind, having read much of what we've gone over on this topic. There's a young YouTuber who is a Christian apologist who has recently released some videos directly dealing with this topic. He has a way of refuting this topic that is very persuasive. Given the ease to use that media can you offer a reply video?. Otherwise we're just starting to rehash a topic and start writing over and over again the same talking points.

How about you instead just actually address my direct questions to you

 

[Dave Ellis]

As long as you were/are a Hebrew.

Otherwise, it would appear 'God" allows/sanctions/condones a lifetime of slavery, with virtually no restrictions in 'punishment', just short of death.

As a disclaimer, this topic would never rear it's 'ugly' head, if there existed even one verse in the Bible stating something to the affect of, 'don't own humans as property.' Or, never mentioned slavery at all. But instead, it provides the contrary.

As another disclaimer, I'm not addressing the 'moral' implications. I'm instead mentioning this topic because when 'slavery' is thrown out there, from a non-believer, the believer quite often uses the word 'regulate'. Which implies, at least to me, that the believer too does not agree with 'slavery' and is using 'apologetics tactics'.

I know this topic is anything but new, but I have to bring it up, because it would more likely appear that such verses were written by humans, whom simply passed them off as God pronouncements. Which is yet another reason non-believers can so easily read from this book and not take it too seriously.

Thoughts?

Actually, it says you can also take slaves from the lands around you. Not only Hebrews were subject to slavery.

 

[Halbhh]

Not trying to 'trip you up' with anything. I'm just observing clearly what you are doing. Which is telling. Stay tuned.



The Maryland code is a human created law. So of course there will be revisions. And please also remember this, which is actually quite relevant to your attempted case...

The laws are not updated because the laws makers were knowingly setting the law one way, to later update it in the future.... They added to (or) amended the rules, as they discovered more reasons for fine tuning it further. It's not like they are trying to purposefully withhold known truths, needed to complete the final law, through progressive updating, in the process.

And like I stated many many many times now. 'Slaves', whatever loose definition (you) wish to apply, are not awarded the same universal rights as free men. Hence, the special considerations explicitly dictated by God Himself. Thus, Matthew 7:12 is not really applicable. Otherwise, God/Jesus would not setup special considerations for slaves specifically. Slaves are property, as dictated by the Holy Bible. Hence, God needed to distinguish what slaves are allowed to do, unlike free men. Such as, i.e. they are still allowed to worship God.



Or maybe you could just simply be intellectually honest with yourself, and answer one simple question.

Is it more likely all verses, in reference to slavery, were merely the writings of men? Or, does God actually condone slavery?

If you select the former, that all verses were human inspired, it makes everything about 'slavery' in the Bible fall well into place very quickly. When you read all verses pertaining to this topic, it becomes rather obvious that all verses were either written by slaver owners, or directed by individuals whom were in favor of slave ownership.

If you attempt to apply the later, i.e. they were messages given by God, then you get a mess, at best; with a truckload of attempted Christian apologetics tactics



Nothing here requires any need for further response. Please read above, as it is all rinse/repeat.

When people guess about others thoughts -- mind reading -- all such guesses about motives/thoughts/emotions of others we know are always a projection.

Thus, when you guess about others as you just did: "you could just simply be intellectually honest with yourself" -- that tells us you are not being intellectually honest with yourself, then.

It fits what we've seen in the thread: When people in the thread give a substantive argument against one of your points, you dismiss their argument in various superficial ways, and then repost your points.

Over and over.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

In regards to now and always, have you talked to Jesus face to face recently? We're dealing with His actions taken thousands of years ago where decisions were made about slavery and give them human rights. You might not agree with them however you and I were not there and nowhere familiar enough with the day to day issues of an ancient civilization. So no you are wrong about now and always. Thus it would be foolish of me to agree or disagree with such a challenge, it's just wrong.

However I would speculate that if human civilization were to fall again dramatically, we would again see mankind adopt the institution of slavery. There has been certain news reporting by journalists I've seen on YouTube about slavery still existing in very small pockets of the world today. It should make people wonder about why but I think in general most people have enough on their plate already.

Which brings to mind, having read much of what we've gone over on this topic. There's a young YouTuber who is a Christian apologist who has recently released some videos directly dealing with this topic. He has a way of refuting this topic that is very persuasive. Given the ease to use that media can you offer a reply video?. Otherwise we're just starting to rehash a topic and start writing over and over again the same talking points.

...well, the response to this was about what I expected it to be, Norbert. I like the video you chose. Too bad 'they' will just do the usual and circumnavigate it .........

 

[2PhiloVoid]

With all due respect, we are not here to educate our audience. I don't really think they will get the wrong idea, but if they do, that need not concern us. We are here to examine the Bible and see if it is in favour of slavery.

And with all due respect to yourself, and being that one of my degrees is in 'education,' particularly of the social science side of things, please forgive me if I affirm that I am here to help inform the audience about the issues involved in our lines of study (and debate), such as they are in an apparent limited capacity and even if not for the direct application of formal education.

And if there are those here who don't like my form of interlocution/debate/apologetics..........

No; the only problem is people who want to take a simple question and over-complicate it.

On the contrary! Human speech-acts are quite often, perhaps mostly, complex activities actuated in an actively complex universe. While we might like to think of our theories as "simple," or we might be prone to let Occam be our theoretical Barber, this isn't to say that the generalities we like to cite are indeed the full reality of the cases we're scrutinizing here. In fact, I'm thinking that you atheists have replaced Occam with the Barber of Seville.............and you just happened to fail to mention this fact to anyone. Convenient for you, I suppose!

We are. I've presented evidence from the Bible that it is pro-slavery, and I'm waiting for you to address it. That's not me being snide, it's me being factual. So far, you have done very little to explain why the verses about slavery are not in favour of it.

What factualness did you present? Do you mean the simplistic presentation of that preacher wannabe from the 1800s named Ebenezer W. Warren? Did he know that the so-called "Curse of Ham" didn't actually pertain to the African people's of the 16th to the 19th centuries in any direct manner, but rather to the dastardly Canaanites who were displaced by the Israelites during the Conquest? I'm guessing that in the typical ignorance of the racism of his day, Ebenezer W. Warren didn't know what others had already known or surmised... and as it often the case, I'm sure many people suffered, both Black and White, for his personal continuance of an ignorant and exaggerated interpretation of a sacred text. Strangely enough, my ranting about this deficiency of Ebenezar W. Warren's interpretive praxis almost sounds like the ranting of all those prophets of the Old Testament, and for about the same kinds of things pertaining to several very serious social injustices promulgated by many faulty leaders in Israel.

I'm also thinking that in Warren's case, like a number of "thinkers" in the South, there was more at play in the qualified, philosophical shaping and supposed justification of the Southern slave ideology than ........ just reading the Bible. But of course, you knew this already, right?

The only problem is people who want to take a simple question and over-complicate it.

Y'know, I've noticed that you really do repeat the slimmest of notions over and over again. You really should expand out from your little solipsistic box you live in.

You, sir, are a prophet.

I'm glad you think so.

Or maybe He just thinks it's a good thing. That would certainly be totally consistent with what we discover of God's character in the Bible.

You do realize that you're on the cusp of blaspheme when you make these kinds of statements? ... But with that said, I'm not surprised. In fact I'm glad you do this, because every statement of this kind that you make, you make give me for evidence that, I think, weighs in favor of the truth of the Bible. So, keep on fighting! (Psalm 2?)

 

[cvanwey]

When people guess about others thoughts -- mind reading -- all such guesses about motives/thoughts/emotions of others we know are always a projection.

When people change the subject, this is one of the key-note reasons they've admitted defeat. (i.e.) your response above The next biggest, is failing to respond, at all, to the intended and directed comment(s)/observation(s)/question(s).

You, have done both, time and time again; including in this thread. And when others here read the entire thread string, it will quickly become apparent.

Thus, when you guess about others as you just did: "you could just simply be intellectually honest with yourself" -- that tells us you are not being intellectually honest with yourself, then.

Nope. But nice attempt at a red herring. But not buying.... Your apologetics games may work elsewhere, so still keep it in your back pocket for future occasions.

Now back to the intended content...

It fits what we've seen in the thread: When people in the thread give a substantive argument against one of your points, you dismiss their argument in various superficial ways, and then repost your points.
Over and over.

Again, I've demonstrated time and time again, the following:

1. God allows slavery then, now, and always. Your only response is Matthew 7:12. But as I've pointed out repeatedly, this fails for (2) reasons:

a. You have a direct contradiction with the many explicit verses which deliberately dictate the rules of engagement for undefined slavery.

b. Slaves are considered property. Hence, Jesus tells folks what special rules they can be allotted, as they are not free humans. Otherwise, they are just property alone. So thank you Jesus for at least telling masters they can't kill them. But again, as I've also stated, a dead slave, or a blind slave, is no good for their master. And if you read at 'the bottom', the reasons will be demonstrated as to why...

2. As stated way back in the OP, if one is to read all verses, pertaining to enslavement from the mindset of a pro-slaver, or someone whom is directed to write as such from the perspective of a pro-slaver, all read verses regarding slavery make much more sense. Meaning, all such verses appear man made and man justified, using the "God card" to 'validate' and justify such practices.

You have also virtually ignored, and/or incorrectly addressed the points you've actually decided to respond to... Hence, the reason you may think I'm merely repeating myself. When in fact, I'm giving you multiple chances to respond. Such as from post #428. Thus, you appear to be amassing or compiling a very large list of unrecognized and/or unanswered comments and/or questions:

Disclaimer: If you just want to fast forward to the end at (The bottom), I have a secret to reveal)....

- If God does not abolish slavery, that means God does not consider slavery a sin. (not acknowledged)

- Christians boast of being on the forefront of abolishing slavery in the American South, which means Christians must somehow think slavery is a sin. (not acknowledged).

- If chattle slavery was again legalized today, the Bible would allow for it. Meaning, it is not considered sin. (not acknowledged)

- Slavery is not well defined. Wouldn't God know humans are dumb and/or self serving, and want to deploy 'improper' slavery practices? (not acknowledged)

- Slaves are considered property and/or a possession and/or money. Meaning, they are not issued the same rights as free humans. (not acknowledged)

- Jesus says nothing to abolish slavery - (see the first point). (not acknowledged)

- Many Christians will claim 'progressive revelation', in regards to slavery. But why would there need to be progressive revelation, if slavery is not a sin to begin with? (not acknowledged)

- God gave special circumstances for the practice of 'slavery', based upon uncontrollable circumstances, (i.e.) the flesh. (not acknowledged)

- At one point in history, God completely seemed to allow the taking of virgins, as the spoils of war. Does He still? And even if He no longer allows for such, why was it okay at one point in time? Furthermore, will there ever exist a circumstance, in the future, where God could issue the allowance once again? (not acknowledged)

- Jesus tells slaves to work for Christian slave masters even harder. And yet, Jesus does not tell slave masters to just no longer be slave masters. (not acknowledged)

- Slaves have their own special set of rules, apart from Matthew 7:12 or Mark 12:31, as they are considered property/possessions/money. (not acknowledged)

**************************************************

(The bottom)

If you just simply read the very bottom of the OP, you will get your answer, when applying intellectual honesty. Simply do as such, and the rest quickly falls into place. Decide not to reconcile as such, (i.e) you, and the skeptics here see nothing but 'spin' and 'hula hoops'.

Peace

 

[InterestedAtheist]

When people guess about others thoughts -- mind reading -- all such guesses about motives/thoughts/emotions of others we know are always a projection.

Thus, when you guess about others as you just did: "you could just simply be intellectually honest with yourself" -- that tells us you are not being intellectually honest with yourself, then.

That's not actually true, you know. If it were, then nobody could ever make a guess about anyone else's state of mind - which, of course, would be nonsensical.
There's bad "mind reading" and good "mind reading". The good kind is when you make a reasonable inference about someone's motivations based on their actions.
Myself, I'd say that you're simply unable to face the truth, and I don't blame you. It would be a hard thing for a Christian who is against slavery to have to admit that God is pro-slavery. The Bible shows this, plainly and clearly; but to ask you to admit it is perhaps asking too much.

It fits what we've seen in the thread: When people in the thread give a substantive argument against one of your points, you dismiss their argument in various superficial ways, and then repost your points.
Over and over.

Hmmm. Sounds like projection to me! In fact, cvanwey and I have made the case clearly from the Bible. What do you imagine it means when the Bible says "Go and take these people as slaves", or "this is how you should take, or buy, or keep, or punish your slaves," or "Slaves, be sure to obey your masters, for that pleases God"?
You and Philo have never really addressed these verses, because you're simply not able to. Instead, you use superficial arguments which cvanwey and I then have to spend - waste? - time rebutting. And it is something of a waste of our time, but very telling, as cvanwey has said more than once. Because it shows you can't address the actual issue of how the Bible obviously does approve of slavery - God, Jesus and Paul, one by one, have told you.

And there's really not much more to say than that. If you want to carry on with your non-biblically-based arguments, feel free. If you want to point out the many reasons that slavery is evil, you'll find me there ahead of you, agreeing with you. But you won't find them in the Bible, because God has made His will clear.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

"As stated way back in the OP, if one is to read all verses, pertaining to enslavement from the mindset of a pro-slaver, or someone whom is directed to write as such from the perspective of a pro-slaver, all read verses regarding slavery make much more sense."

Bingo.

It may perhaps be unfair of me to rate @cvanwey as "winner", since he and I are on the same side of the debate; but he really set it out clearly there, and there's not much more to say. Not that there ever has been. Either read the Bible and believe it, or don't.

 

[cvanwey]

"As stated way back in the OP, if one is to read all verses, pertaining to enslavement from the mindset of a pro-slaver, or someone whom is directed to write as such from the perspective of a pro-slaver, all read verses regarding slavery make much more sense."

Bingo.

It may perhaps be unfair of me to rate @cvanwey as "winner", since he and I are on the same side of the debate; but he really set it out clearly there, and there's not much more to say. Not that there ever has been. Either read the Bible and believe it, or don't.

And if anyone is just entering this thread now, just read the OP and stop. Because there was nothing nowhere, at any time, which explained away the obvious. It's not rocket science, really...

Which is, again, stated in the OP.

But if you all like entertainment, feel free to read as such

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Edited to add: Look, Philo, I hope I don't come across as insulting or offensive in this. I'm just speaking the truth bluntly, because I think that's what you need.

And with all due respect to yourself, and being that one of my degrees is in 'education,' particularly of the social science side of things, please forgive me if I affirm that I am here to help inform the audience about the issues involved in our lines of study (and debate), such as they are in an apparent limited capacity and even if not for the direct application of formal education.

Your degrees are your business. I am simply here to present the facts, and am not bound to help you in whatever your mission is. CF is a debating forum, and I am here to debate.

And if there are those here who don't like my form of interlocution/debate/apologetics..........

Then they don't have to read them.

On the contrary! Human speech-acts are quite often, perhaps mostly, complex activities actuated in an actively complex universe.

It's certainly true that the topic of slavery includes many complex issues and questions, as does the topic of studying the Bible. But "Does the Bible support slavery?" is not one of them. The answer is simply, "Yes, it does", as has been proven in this thread, simply by citing the verses from it about slavery which, almost unanimously, support it.

What factualness did you present? Do you mean the simplistic presentation of that preacher wannabe from the 1800s named Ebenezer W. Warren?

No, that's just icing on the cake. The fact is that, if you ask the Bible what it thinks of slavery, it tells you: slavery is fine.

I'm also thinking that in Warren's case, like a number of "thinkers" in the South, there was more at play in the qualified, philosophical shaping and supposed justification of the Southern slave ideology than ........ just reading the Bible. But of course, you knew this already, right?

Of course. There are quite a lot of things in his speech I'd disagree with. But when he enumerates the ways in which Slavery is supported by the Bible, he's spot on.

Y'know, I've noticed that you really do repeat the slimmest of notions over and over again. You really should expand out from your little solipsistic box you live in.

The mistake that you're making is in not realising that some questions have simple answers. It's as much a mistake to over-complicate a simple issue as it is to simplify a complex one.

You do realize that you're on the cusp of blaspheme when you make these kinds of statements? ... But with that said, I'm not surprised. In fact I'm glad you do this, because every statement of this kind that you make, you make give me for evidence that, I think, weighs in favor of the truth of the Bible. So, keep on fighting! (Psalm 2?)

If you feel that you become a better Christian when you ignore the truth, then by all means continue to do so.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Edited to add: Look, Philo, I hope I don't come across as insulting or offensive in this. I'm just speaking the truth bluntly, because I think that's what you need.

That's fine by me. Feel free to do so since I feel free to do so as well.

Your degrees are your business. I am simply here to present the facts, and am not bound to help you in whatever your mission is. CF is a debating forum, and I am here to debate.

And I'm presenting facts, facts which seem to be continuously passed over without real debate but rather with just persnickety comments on the part of the atheist's Peanut Gallery, which at the present time seems to be made up officially by you and @cvanwey.

Then they don't have to read them.

Lol! I was going to say.... "then too bad!" But I suppose you're take on my responses could be a valid conclusion as well, one that sadly seems to be the chosen course of action around here.

It's certainly true that the topic of slavery includes many complex issues and questions, as does the topic of studying the Bible. But "Does the Bible support slavery?" is not one of them. The answer is simply, "Yes, it does", as has been proven in this thread, simply by citing the verses from it about slavery which, almost unanimously, support it.

...and I think I've already answered the question. The answer is: YES, most assuredly yes, but yes with qualifications and distinctions that louse headed Southern U.S. slave owners did not apparently make or hold to as they should have ...

No, that's just icing on the cake. The fact is that, if you ask the Bible what it thinks of slavery, it tells you: slavery is fine.

If you've got the frosting, I've got the cake topper.

I'm sure you know you WON'T win this debate. NO, your arguments are going down, and I will take them there, even if it takes weeks to do so in the midst of a busy schedule!

Of course. There are quite a lot of things in his speech I'd disagree with. But when he enumerates the ways in which Slavery is supported by the Bible, he's spot on.

Of course there's a lot to disagree with, because like a lot of Southern U.S. racist types who have been around since who knows when, Ebenezar W. Warren was a bone-headed punk. Simple as that! And I've got to love that name: Ebenezar! So Christmasy!

The mistake that you're making is in not realising that some questions have simple answers. It's as much a mistake to over-complicate a simple issue as it is to simplify a complex one.

And the mistake you're making is to think I haven't been studying much of this, even if not as comprehensively as I'd like, for a number of years.

If you feel that you become a better Christian when you ignore the truth, then by all means continue to do so.

No, to ignore the truth in this case would make me an atheist.

 

[cvanwey]

...and I think I've already answered the question. The answer is: YES, most assuredly yes, but yes with qualifications and distinctions that louse headed Southern U.S. slave owners did not apparently make or hold to as they should have ...

Since you made an effort to mention my name specifically.... Let's (again) preemptively start by giving your response some credence; to give you a head start. At any point, I don't recall you really addressing as such... (i.e.) And again, it's not like I'm defining 'slavery' as only the American slave trade in the South but instead just plain vanilla 'chattle slavery', or any slavery in general, as it is not defined. You and your 'peanut gallery' are the ones whom are quick to bring up such a case. Where I responded, time and time again, if such slavery was again legalized, you would be hard pressed to state God thinks it's a sin.

So again, starting anew, let's start from the top:

General definition:

'A chattel slave is an enslaved person who is owned for ever and whose children and children's children are automatically enslaved. Chattel slaves are individuals treated as complete property, to be bought and sold. Chattel slavery was supported and made legal by European governments and monarchs.'

And again, an apparent God directed sanctioned allowance:

'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.'

Fast forwarding through another possible 50 exchanges, this is the main point of my post... Which is...

I'm stating if you read the Bible verses, through the lens of someone whom wants to justify slavery practices, it's crazy how all such verses, which mention slavery appear to fall quickly into line. Meaning, the authors of such verses were either pro-slavers themselves, or were directed to write as such. Writing such verses, and claiming divine direction, makes them 'Word'. Would you at least concede the position or stance in which I'm coming from, even if you do not agree?

If you acknowledge how it is quite easy to do as such, I have no more beef with you, regarding this specific topic. I'm not trying to say God does not exist. I'm saying such verses do not appear God inspired. But I know many here cannot own up to that, because once they do, they would then have quite a lot to answer to, in regards to WHAT OTHER verses are also not from God.

Again, I'm simply trying not to start another barrage of 'Chinese water torture.'

If you agree, which means you really do not need to concede much, other than the ones whom view such verses as strictly man made, can present a justified and valid case - (whether they/we are right or not). Because again, I'm not addressing the moral aspect. But the fact that you guys are on here, to 'justify' it, leads me to think that your 'peanut gallery' agree, that if such verses are as instructed, you do not agree with them either