• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Slavery in the bible

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
To be fair, (also @dybmh) I did assume that beatings happened fairly routinely. And I probably did use some over-the-top qualifier like "all the time." But in the end, beating is permitted within the law. To imagine that this wasn't purposeful, and that there weren't people who took advantage of that fact when these people were allowed and even encouraged to believe that they literally owned the other person, is borderline preposterous in my opinion.
What you're speaking about is perfectly natural to assume based on the behavior of so many "believers".
 

Enoch07

It's all a sick freaking joke.
Premium Member
Obviously you didn't even understand what I said one iota. YOUR SOURCE indicated that 24.9% of HOUSEHOLDS (NOT people or population) were slave-owning households.

5% reflects reality. You just want to abuse stats for the highest number possible to make your case appear stronger. Unless you can provide a legit number showing that 1 in 4 households were rich enough to afford slaves then you sont have much of a claim.

And I have only been arguing that it was a damn sight higher than "5%."

Reality tends to be that way. Rarely does it fit the fictional narrative being spun.

Way more than 5%. I can't quote an actual number, obviously, but THIS is why I said your 5% number was misleading.

You can't quote a different number because 5% is the legit number. I dare say it's actually lower that that, but 5% is what data I cite with any credibility. Lie I say only 1% of the richest people could afford slaves at the time.

In 1850 on avg, slaves sold for the equivalent to $40,000 per in today's money. That's the kind of money most people don't have. And that just 1 slave mind you, most slave owners owned multiple slaves. Which means multiple $100,000's spent on slaves. This is not the kind of money most people even today have, let alone 200+ years ago. So you're 25%+ number you so desperately want to believe in is just not supported by facts.


So I posit that it wasn't the "Christian" in them, specifically, that had them denouncing slavery, but the general "smart" in them.

Nah it was Christian.

Second Great Awakening - Wikipedia

Likely, yes.

Greed, power, control of land/resources is usually the root of all evil.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
And what makes one a "gentile" then? All I know is, one of the dictionary definitions gave me a chuckle: "a person who is not Jewish, especially a Christian." Whew... I just wish this stuff weren't so much fun, honestly. I waste entirely too much time on it.
Agreed... I often think of the word: "Humane". So many believers seem to act like little gods. Judging, preaching, imposing their will on others... it's not very humane... it's like they've forgotten that they are Human... not God.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
5% reflects reality. You just want to abuse stats for the highest number possible to make your case appear stronger. Unless you can provide a legit number showing that 1 in 4 households were rich enough to afford slaves then you sont have much of a claim.



Reality tends to be that way. Rarely does it fit the fictional narrative being spun.



You can't quote a different number because 5% is the legit number. I dare say it's actually lower that that, but 5% is what data I cite with any credibility. Lie I say only 1% of the richest people could afford slaves at the time.

In 1850 on avg, slaves sold for the equivalent to $40,000 per in today's money. That's the kind of money most people don't have. And that just 1 slave mind you, most slave owners owned multiple slaves. Which means multiple $100,000's spent on slaves. This is not the kind of money most people even today have, let alone 200+ years ago. So you're 25%+ number you so desperately want to believe in is just not supported by facts.
Again, did you even read what I wrote?

WE'VE NOT BEEN DISCUSSING THE PERCENTAGE OR NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO OWN SLAVES!

What we began talking about was the percentage of people within the South who would have been proponents/supporters of slavery. The number of people who would have gone to bat, or argued FOR slavery.

Damn, man... read for comprehension. I triple-dog-dare you.
 

Cooky

Veteran Member
My apologies. Though I would assume that, even if you don't defer to The Bible as an ultimate source of your religious beliefs, you certainly defer to God, correct?

I'll direct my question to you about God's ideas then.

Do you think God finds slavery to be wholly objectionable now? And additionally, do you think that God found slavery wholly objectionable when The Bible was written? And if, within there, God changed His mind about slavery, does this mean that God made some mistakes?

In 1537, Pope Paul III (r. 1534-1549) issued a bull, Sublimus Dei, which taught that natives peoples were not to be enslaved. In 1591, Gregory XIV (r. 1590-1591) promulgated Cum Sicuti, which was addressed to the bishop of Manila in the Philippines and reiterated his predecessors’ prohibitions against enslaving native peoples. In the seventeenth century, Urban VIII (r. 1623-1644) promulgated Commissum Nobis(1639) in support of the Spanish king’s (Philip IV) edict prohibiting enslavement of the Indians in the New World.

The need for cheap and abundant labor in the colonies is what led to the African slave trade. This new form of bondage was also condemned by the popes, beginning with Innocent XI (r. 1676-1689). In 1741, Benedict XIV (r. 1740-1758) issued Immensa Pastorum, which reiterated that the penalty for enslaving Indians was excommunication. In 1839, Gregory XVI (r. 1831-1846) issued In Supremo to condemn the enslavement of Africans. Pope Leo XIII (r. 1878-1903) promulgated two bulls condemning slavery in 1888 and 1890.

Did the Church Ever Support Slavery?
 

Cooky

Veteran Member
In the meantime, during the 16th and 17th centuries, where do we see secular humanists in prohibition of slavery? Were they silent?
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
In 1537, Pope Paul III (r. 1534-1549) issued a bull, Sublimus Dei, which taught that natives peoples were not to be enslaved. In 1591, Gregory XIV (r. 1590-1591) promulgated Cum Sicuti, which was addressed to the bishop of Manila in the Philippines and reiterated his predecessors’ prohibitions against enslaving native peoples. In the seventeenth century, Urban VIII (r. 1623-1644) promulgated Commissum Nobis(1639) in support of the Spanish king’s (Philip IV) edict prohibiting enslavement of the Indians in the New World.

The need for cheap and abundant labor in the colonies is what led to the African slave trade. This new form of bondage was also condemned by the popes, beginning with Innocent XI (r. 1676-1689). In 1741, Benedict XIV (r. 1740-1758) issued Immensa Pastorum, which reiterated that the penalty for enslaving Indians was excommunication. In 1839, Gregory XVI (r. 1831-1846) issued In Supremo to condemn the enslavement of Africans. Pope Leo XIII (r. 1878-1903) promulgated two bulls condemning slavery in 1888 and 1890.

Did the Church Ever Support Slavery?
So, to sum up, I am going to assume your post to mean that the Catholics always had it right, whether this be because God communicated it to these popes, or the popes were just more progressive than God and didn't give a hoot what He had to say on the matter. Interesting to know.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
And you obviously did not read what I wrote.
Does the Bible say if you so much as beat a slave and he looses a tooth, he should be set free?
Do you think that men in ancient times did not lose their temper and went into a fighting rage where he attacked a slave?
dont you think that if he did so, and the slave died due to this attack, the Bible is correct in giving the death penalty to the attacking master?
What if the slave died of something totally unrelated after a few days, should the atacker then also be executed?
Look, if you are contend in taking one verse out of the context of everything the Bible says about say, slavery, to cast your way of thinking for whatever reason, know that you will be able to believe and disbelieve everything due to ignorance.
But go and check everything I attached, and then come an critisize.

The Hebrews were opposed to enslaving other Hebrews, but they were keen to enslave the Canaanites when they could. Look at the Gibeonites.

Joshua 17:12–13 notes, “The Manassites were not able to occupy these towns, for the Canaanites were determined to live in that region. However, when the Israelites grew stronger, they subjected the Canaanites to forced labor but did not drive them out completely.” Why didn’t the Israelites completely destroy the Canaanites as God had commanded?

Judges 1:27–33 also describes the failure of the Israelites to complete the conquest of the land through removing the Canaanites. Verses 27–28 states, “Manasseh did not drive out the people of Beth Shan or Taanach or Dor or Ibleam or Megiddo and their surrounding settlements, for the Canaanites were determined to live in that land. When Israel became strong, they pressed the Canaanites into forced labor but never drove them out completely.”

It took a while for slavery to be abolished.

Passed by Congress on January 31, 1865, and ratified on December 6, 1865, the 13th amendment abolished slavery in the United States and provides that "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.".
13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Abolition of ...
www.archives.gov/historical-docs/13th-amendment
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Who says that there was a crime? Slavery is not moral period. You appear to be trying to justify the wrongs of the past.
Not moral period?

If a court of law determines that a person stole property, cannot reimburse the owner, what should happen? They go to jail? Lose their freedom? Get fed? How long do they stay in jail, what are the conditions?

Some criminals are radicalized in jail and on release are not rehabilitated; they're worse.

What if there are no jails, or no room, and this is a repeat offender who is sentenced to slavery? If there are no jails or no room for them, what should happen? Clearly the offender shouldn't get a free-pass.

What are the options?

Death-penalty?
Amputation?
Slavery?

I would have to review the laws of slavery again, but I think a slave owner can free their slave. I don't think there is a minimum sentence. We've already established that cruelty is discouraged for all slaves, for all people. I could go on and on.

Look, I'm not trying to justify the wrongs of the past. But, there is merit to the statement "it's not a slave; it's a servant" when it comes to a slave defined by Jewish Law based on the verses in the Old Testament.
 

Enoch07

It's all a sick freaking joke.
Premium Member
Again, did you even read what I wrote?

WE'VE NOT BEEN DISCUSSING THE PERCENTAGE OR NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO OWN SLAVES!

What we began talking about was the percentage of people within the South who would have been proponents/supporters of slavery. The number of people who would have gone to bat, or argued FOR slavery.

Damn, man... read for comprehension. I triple-dog-dare you.

First of all that number is impossible to quantify. How would you propose that we gather that information? Other than pure conjecture and speculation there is no reliable way. Just sticking to the facts available to us if that's ok.

But not all people in the south supported slavery. Who do you think helped the slaves get from the south to the north? Also many towns and/or counties flew the American flag during the Confederacy in opposition to the Confederates.

Southern Unionist - Wikipedia
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
First of all that number is impossible to quantify. How would you propose that we gather that information? Other than pure conjecture and speculation there is no reliable way. Just sticking to the facts available to us if that's ok.

But not all people in the south supported slavery. Who do you think helped the slaves get from the south to the north? Also many towns and/or counties flew the American flag during the Confederacy in opposition to the Confederates.

Southern Unionist - Wikipedia
But the argument was that there was a significant number of people advocating for slavery and using The Bible as their supporting source. I don't need to necessarily quantify it to some exacting degree. The percentage of people belonging to slavery owning households was significant. The number of people who feared what life would be like once they were surrounded by a host of freed slaves was significant. The number of people who feared for the financial stability of the South was significant. Among the combination of all those, to say that the number of people who supported slavery (for one or more of those reasons) was insignificant is just denial. And since the percentage of those in the country who were atheist during this time was quite low (even today, we're only looking at 3.1%), and that the greatest percentage of the population of the country were some form of Christian (most likely a higher proportion of the South), then it stands to reason that a good portion of those people who supported slavery were Christians. That's all I was saying.

Finally, if you don't want to accept my lack of concrete numbers to go with any of that conjecture (which I can understand), it doesn't even matter. If there were ANY supporters of slavery to be found at all (which documentation assures us that there were), then, given the distributions of belief-system/worldview of the country at that time, it is guaranteed that a high percentage of them hailed as some form of Christian. And it is also documented that people used The Bible in argumentation for keeping the institution of slavery - which I highly doubt was a tactic being used by non-Christians. So however many Christians helped abolish slavery (which you haven't provided concrete numbers for either, let's remember), there were also some that tried to keep it around.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Not moral period?

If a court of law determines that a person stole property, cannot reimburse the owner, what should happen? They go to jail? Lose their freedom? Get fed? How long do they stay in jail, what are the conditions?

Some criminals are radicalized in jail and on release are not rehabilitated; they're worse.

What if there are no jails, or no room, and this is a repeat offender who is sentenced to slavery? If there are no jails or no room for them, what should happen? Clearly the offender shouldn't get a free-pass.

What are the options?

Death-penalty?
Amputation?
Slavery?

I would have to review the laws of slavery again, but I think a slave owner can free their slave. I don't think there is a minimum sentence. We've already established that cruelty is discouraged for all slaves, for all people. I could go on and on.

Look, I'm not trying to justify the wrongs of the past. But, there is merit to the statement "it's not a slave; it's a servant" when it comes to a slave defined by Jewish Law based on the verses in the Old Testament.

What a pile of manure. Slavery was cruel.
 

Enoch07

It's all a sick freaking joke.
Premium Member
But the argument was that there was a significant number of people advocating for slavery and using The Bible as their supporting source. I don't need to necessarily quantify it to some exacting degree.

You do need to provide some concrete numbers of your claim of "significant numbers" is to be supported though.

The percentage of people belonging to slavery owning households was significant.

Not for your argument.

In fact it goes against your argument.

You do realize that some of the people belonging to households that were slave owners were abolitionist themselves. They would undermine the, usually Father/Master, and free slaves whenever they could.

So to lump them in with people who supported slavery just because they came from a family that owned slaves does them a disservice.

The number of people who feared for the financial stability of the South was significant.

Its significant in today world as well. Who has never worried about their financial stability/security? The extremely high tariffs the north placed on the south was unfair to say the least.

Among the combination of all those, to say that the number of people who supported slavery (for one or more of those reasons) was insignificant is just denial.

I never denied that some people supported slavery. Just that the number in reality, is much lower than is thought of usually.

And since the percentage of those in the country who were atheist during this time was quite low (even today, we're only looking at 3.1%), and that the greatest percentage of the population of the country were some form of Christian (most likely a higher proportion of the South), then it stands to reason that a good portion of those people who supported slavery were Christians. That's all I was saying.

Fact is it's just human nature, especially in those days and before. Because slavery was socially/morally acceptable up til about 300 years ago or so. Don't make it right or ok, but it is fact nonetheless.

If there were ANY supporters of slavery to be found at all (which documentation assures us that there were), then, given the distributions of belief-system/worldview of the country at that time, it is guaranteed that a high percentage of them hailed as some form of Christian.

Well when 97%+ of the population is Christian its be easy to scapegoat Christianity as the problem. Doesn't mean it's true though, especially with the abolitionist movement to show otherwise.

And it is also documented that people used The Bible in argumentation for keeping the institution of slavery - which I highly doubt was a tactic being used by non-Christians.

Meh, unscrupulous people will use whatever they can to try to justify their actions. Even using the Bible if they don't believe in it. That's evidenced here on RF with atheist acusing Christians of cherry picking for not doing >insert atrocity here< like a OT passage says etc.

So however many Christians helped abolish slavery (which you haven't provided concrete numbers for either, let's remember), there were also some that tried to keep it around.

Considering all of the North opposed slavery, a majority Christian by your own words. Then you have the South who supported slavery, but had those within it that opposed slavery also, a majority Christian by your own words. It would be safe to deduce that the majority of Christian's opposed slavery.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
post#206 shows it was an assumption.

In a jail; offenders get beaten by corrections officers. Whether or not it's immoral depends on the circumstances. I don't want to dwell too much on this. But, this is why we need precedent. Because sometimes, beating a criminal by the warden or jail staff while incarcerated is... ugly... but not immoral.
I don't think that you understand what an assumption is. I saw no indication of that in there. A conclusion drawn upon evidence and reason is not an assumption.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Not moral period?

If a court of law determines that a person stole property, cannot reimburse the owner, what should happen? They go to jail? Lose their freedom? Get fed? How long do they stay in jail, what are the conditions?

Some criminals are radicalized in jail and on release are not rehabilitated; they're worse.

What if there are no jails, or no room, and this is a repeat offender who is sentenced to slavery? If there are no jails or no room for them, what should happen? Clearly the offender shouldn't get a free-pass.

What are the options?

Death-penalty?
Amputation?
Slavery?

I would have to review the laws of slavery again, but I think a slave owner can free their slave. I don't think there is a minimum sentence. We've already established that cruelty is discouraged for all slaves, for all people. I could go on and on.

Look, I'm not trying to justify the wrongs of the past. But, there is merit to the statement "it's not a slave; it's a servant" when it comes to a slave defined by Jewish Law based on the verses in the Old Testament.
You are using the standard that was applied to Hebrew slaves and not foreign slaves. The Hebrews in the OT could own slaves much in the same way that they were owned in the Old South. It was not a case of debt or a wrong done for many of them. Now you appear to be making assumptions.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
You do need to provide some concrete numbers of your claim of "significant numbers" is to be supported though.

I can't seem to get at numbers, but sources just say "many Christians" when they talk about people advocating for slavery. There are also quotes from religious leaders of the time to back up the idea that there were definitely Christians advocating for keeping slavery around, and they apparently knew all about what The Bible actually says regarding slavery, and what it stays ominously silent about:

"There is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many regulating it. It is not then, we conclude, immoral."
-Rev. Alexander Campbell

"The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example."
-
Rev. R. Furman, D.D., Baptist, of South Carolina

"The hope of civilization itself hangs on the defeat of Negro suffrage."
A statement by a prominent 19th-century southern Presbyterian pastor, cited by Rev. Jack Rogers, moderator of the Presbyterian Church (USA).

George Whitefield, famed for his sparking of the Great Awakening of American evangelicalism, campaigned, in the Province of Georgia, for the legalisation of slavery
Sourced from the book "George Whitefield: The Life and Times of the Great Evangelist of the Eighteenth Century (1980), Volume 2"

The only point being, you can't just say that Christianity alone was responsible for ending slavery, when Christianity was attempting to be one thing that kept slavery in place also. Again, I would say it had to be specific individuals, whose minds were on the human component, and who were willing to ignore what God had to say (specifically about slavery) who won the day.
 
Last edited:

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
You are using the standard that was applied to Hebrew slaves and not foreign slaves. The Hebrews in the OT could own slaves much in the same way that they were owned in the Old South. It was not a case of debt or a wrong done for many of them. Now you appear to be making assumptions.
you said "slavery is immoral. period." if you want to move the goal post, that's fine.

i am not assuming.. at least not this time.
 
Last edited:

Enoch07

It's all a sick freaking joke.
Premium Member
I can't seem to get at numbers, but sources just say "many Christians" when they talk about people advocating for slavery.

I'm sure as far as raw numbers go those supporting slavery was in the thousands.

The only point being, you can't just say that Christianity alone was responsible for ending slavery, when Christianity was attempting to be the thing that kept slavery in place also.

Well to be fair. The Christian Abolitonist movement was the ones who actively did anything. If not for them, who knows how long slavery would have continued. The number who opposed outnumbered those that supported, and that is the important part.

Again, I would say it had to be specific individuals, whose minds were on the human component, and who were willing to ignore what God had to say, specifically, about slavery who won the day.

You've got it backwards though.

You're stating that the minority that used the Bible to justify slavery is the default position.

I simply don't agree.

The majority that used the Bible to end slavery is the default position. Specifically the teachings of Jesus in the NT.
 
Top