• 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

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
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.
That was an example of the fact that even if I grant your claim about Hebrew slaves that that the Torah or Bible still advocates for an evil practice. In other words the Bible is still wrong even if I concede a point that I never did concede.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
That was an example of the fact that even if I grant your claim about Hebrew slaves that that the Torah or Bible still advocates for an evil practice. In other words the Bible is still wrong even if I concede a point that I never did concede.
I think we actually agree, at least on the important points.

We agree that what is listed in the text is evil? We agree that people are wrong to look to the text as a moral compass? We agree that how people apply the text is what matters? We agree that it's good no one owns slaves anymore?
 

SA Huguenot

Well-Known Member
That was an example of the fact that even if I grant your claim about Hebrew slaves that that the Torah or Bible still advocates for an evil practice. In other words the Bible is still wrong even if I concede a point that I never did concede.
So, we agree that you did not read my PDF summary on the topic.
Else you would have seen that the slave being described in the Bible, is not a slave, but a servant working for a rich master to support his family.
So will you at least go and read my compiled full study on the subject?
 

SA Huguenot

Well-Known Member
Didn't realize I was saying this. All I was ultimately saying is that The Bible can be used as a source of support for all kinds of ideas. Even very very bad ones.
So true.
Thats why it pays to read it for one self.
I was deceived by Bible "preachers" many a time in my life.
I remember how far right "Christians" tried to prove racism from the Bible.
How Spiritulally blessed "Christians" punted me for money with lies.
How they healed me, blessed me and assured me that not a single daemon will touch me in the hereafter.
How convenient theyr received prophecies to assure me that what they utter should be done, or else....
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Meh anyone can do that. Whether they actually believe it or not. :shrug:
Anyone can do either. People cherry pick from the Bible ... All. The. Time.

It's a lot easier to use the Bible to argue in favour of slavery though, given that it explains where to get slaves and how to treat them, without ever saying that slavery is immoral.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
So, we agree that you did not read my PDF summary on the topic.
Else you would have seen that the slave being described in the Bible, is not a slave, but a servant working for a rich master to support his family.
So will you at least go and read my compiled full study on the subject?
Perhaps later. Apologetics is very irritating to me since most I have seen are desperate cherry picking. It is a method of lying for one's God.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Anyone can do either. People cherry pick from the Bible ... All. The. Time.

It's a lot easier to use the Bible to argue in favour of slavery though, given that it explains where to get slaves and how to treat them, without ever saying that slavery is immoral.

Slavery was an integral part of society, as has
been the case in many or most societies ever
since there was a society.
No particular reason the bible-writers would think
to specifically sanction it. Why sanction any normal
aspect of daily life?

Nobody saw any prob. with it, evidently unless
some of the slaves did. (like say the virgin girls
carried away as booty-but foolish girls they were,
who did not accept it was specifically sanctioned of god)

As for those who pretend that the bible does not
approve of slavery, they are just discrediting
themselves and their "faith", as much as are the
ones who pretend there really was a noahs ark.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran 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.

.
It's your numbers that don't appear to be supported by facts ...


“The white South’s social structure was much more complex than the popular stereotype of proud aristocrats disdainful of honest work and ignorant, vicious, exploited poor whites. The old South’s intricate social structure included many small slaveowners and relatively few large ones.

Large slaveholders were extremely rare. In 1860 only 11,000 Southerners, three-quarters of one percent of the white population owned more than 50 slaves; a mere 2,358 owned as many as 100 slaves. However, although large slaveholders were few in number, they owned most of the South’s slaves. Over half of all slaves lived on plantations with 20 or more slaves and a quarter lived on plantations with more than 50 slaves.

Slave ownership was relatively widespread. In the first half of the 19th century, one-third of all southern white families owned slaves, and a majority of white southern families either owned slaves, had owned them, or expected to own them. These slaveowners were a diverse lot. A few were African American, mulatto, or Native American; one-tenth were women; and more than one in ten worked as artisans, businesspeople, or merchants rather than as farmers or planters. Few led lives of leisure or refinement.”

… The southern economy generated enormous wealth and was critical to the economic growth of the entire United States. Well over half of the richest 1 percent of Americans in 1860 lived in the South.

Digital History


“Even more revealing was their attachment to slavery. Among the enlistees in 1861, slightly more than one in ten owned slaves personally. This compared favorably to the Confederacy as a whole, in which one in every twenty white persons owned slaves. Yet more than one in every four volunteers that first year lived with parents who were slaveholders. Combining those soldiers who owned slaves with those soldiers who lived with slaveholding family members, the proportion rose to 36 percent. That contrasted starkly with the 24.9 percent, or one in every four households, that owned slaves in the South, based on the 1860 census. Thus, volunteers in 1861 were 42 percent more likely to own slaves themselves or to live with family members who owned slaves than the general population.”

Small Truth Papering Over a Big Lie



“Almost one-third of all Southern families owned slaves. In Mississippi and South Carolina it approached one half. The total number of slave owners was 385,000 (including, in Louisiana, some free Negroes). As for the number of slaves owned by each master, 88% held fewer than twenty, and nearly 50% held fewer than five. (A complete table on slave-owning percentages is given at the bottom of this page.)”

Selected Statistics
 

SkepticThinker

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



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.



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.
Then they were arguing against their own Bible.
When did Jesus say that slavery was immoral?
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
So, we agree that you did not read my PDF summary on the topic.
Else you would have seen that the slave being described in the Bible, is not a slave, but a servant working for a rich master to support his family.
So will you at least go and read my compiled full study on the subject?
The way it's actually described in the Bible ... is straight up slavery.
I'm so tired of this lame apologetic. Sorry.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
So true.
Thats why it pays to read it for one self.
I was deceived by Bible "preachers" many a time in my life.
I remember how far right "Christians" tried to prove racism from the Bible.
How Spiritulally blessed "Christians" punted me for money with lies.
How they healed me, blessed me and assured me that not a single daemon will touch me in the hereafter.
How convenient theyr received prophecies to assure me that what they utter should be done, or else....
I have read it for myself. It contains a lot of junk, and a lot of stuff that is entirely too easy to see through - even though plenty of people are deceived by it even when they do read it themselves. A couple low-hanging fruit examples:

Songs being sung for David, mocking Saul - lauding the fact that David killed tens of thousands while Saul only killed thousands. It is stated in the text as if this is a good thing - something to be proud of, and makes David so much more glorious than Saul. We know better now. This written out of the brainless romanticism of war that could be held by people who didn't know the atrocities themselves. Written by complete and utter idiots with no experience or information about the real world.

The first 4 of the 10 commandments have nothing to do with how to treat your fellow man - but focus on how you should "treat" God. The effects of treating your fellow man with respect or disrespect are demonstrable - the effects of treating God with either are nil... as in none... there are no effects that can be demonstrated or even known with certainty. It makes the 10 commandments a joke - almost 50% of it has nothing to do with morality as humans express it.

There is plenty, plenty more. The Bible is old, and its age shows in the intellectual innocence of the writings.
 
Last edited:

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Nobody saw any prob. with it, evidently unless
some of the slaves did. (like say the virgin girls
carried away as booty-but foolish girls they were,
who did not accept it was specifically sanctioned of god)
This is a good example of an assumption. The assumption is "Nobody saw any problem with it." There is significant evidence to the contrary. But you don't know that. Your natural tendency seems to be to criticize first. Ask questions... never. And deny any scholarship that does not fit your preconceived notions.

The situation of carrying away a captive during a time of war and marrying them is criticized heavily in the Talmud. I haven't finished reviewing the material, but it appears there is also significant criticism of this in Mishnah and Midrash as well.

You are wrong, Audie. Lots of people see problems with it. But your reply demonstrates a bias to assume the worst of religious people.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
That was an example of the fact that even if I grant your claim about Hebrew slaves that that the Torah or Bible still advocates for an evil practice. In other words the Bible is still wrong even if I concede a point that I never did concede.
One detail I think needs to be clarified. You are really only considering the written Torah in your determination of "advocates for an evil practice". The whole Torah, really means everything that was given to Moses on Mt. Sinai. And that is an important distinction. That is why it is relevant to look at the law as well as written text in order to determine what is "advocated for".

In previous threads, I have tried to make this important point:

Looking at the written text is like reading the cliff-notes version of what was given on Mt. Sinai. Looking only at an english translation without consulting Mishah, Midrash, and Talmud is grossly incomplete. And that is why many people believe that the Torah advocates evil. It is literally ignorant. What is written in the text leads a person to that natural conclusion. But that conclusion is still lacking a lot of information.

Without access to any other texts, it makes perfect sense for a person to assume that the Torah advocates for evil practices. This is because without Mishnah, Midrash, and Talmud all that's left are the cliff-notes.
 
Last edited:

Enoch07

It's all a sick freaking joke.
Premium Member
Didn't realize I was saying this. All I was ultimately saying is that The Bible can be used as a source of support for all kinds of ideas. Even very very bad ones.

Evil people will do this to mask their true intentions. Just like Hitler pretended to be a socialist to trick the German people into thinking he would lead them out of poverty. It's not like he campaigned on the idea of the genocide of an entire race. He hid behind false pretenses of giving everyone jobs, food, and ecocnomic stability.
 

Enoch07

It's all a sick freaking joke.
Premium Member
It's a lot easier to use the Bible to argue in favour of slavery though, given that it explains where to get slaves and how to treat them, without ever saying that slavery is immoral.

Doesn't make it true though. Evil people use anything they can to justify their actions.

Besides the Bible was used to end slavery in the U.S. Who knows how long it would have continued has the Christian Abolitionist not stood up and took action.

In the first half of the 19th century, one-third of all southern white families owned slaves, and a majority of white southern families either owned slaves, had owned them, or expected to own them.

Pure conjecture and speculation. Talk about inflating number and statistics to suit a narrative. Lumping current owners with previous owners and expecting owners? Sheesh

5% is the real number, as I cited in my article. Slaves were extremely expensive. In today's world only the 1% richest would be able to afford them. The avg slave cost $40,000 of today's money. That's not the kind of money 25%-33% of people can throw around, in any time period, especially in the south during the early history of the U.S.

Your numbers are based on per households. So if a plantation owner has 7 people in his family (1 wife, and 6 kids) that counts as 7 slave owners. Which doesn't stand up under scrutiny. Because not everyone who's family owned slaves supported slavery. Who do you think helped slaves sneak away when they had a chance?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
@Subduction Zone ,

:facepalm:

You have no evidence that slaves weren't treated as servants. Noted.

You have no evidence that anyone followed the written Torah's directives about beating any slaves. Noted.

You criticize me, my approach, and the words on the page. Noted.

Look, you have no evidence that anyone was harmed. It seems like you are presuming guilt. As a moral person, I would expect that you would not assume that people are guilty without facts.

Where is the intellectual integrity? Where is the critical thinking?

All that has been presented by you, Sooda, and Audie is Presumption of Guilt.

Oh yeah, you criticized me. But nothing substantive has been presented.

maybe you can refresh my memory? What are the claims I have made that are not supported? I will back them up. We don't even need to focus on the claims you made. Just list out the claims I made; i will support each one, or concede each one.

However, I predict that whatever sources I bring, they won't satisfy you. because at this point it doesn't appear that you are debating in good faith.
 
Top