• 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
@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.
Wow! You have not read the Bible at all. Nor do you appear to know how to use the concept of "evidence". Right not the Bible is convicted by its own verses. Rude response all but guarantee rude replies.

You do not know how to facepalm properly either. People who don't own up to their own errors never can use that in the appropriate way. Why not work on some of your basic misunderstandings before you criticize others.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Wow! You have not read the Bible at all. Nor do you appear to know how to use the concept of "evidence". Right not the Bible is convicted by its own verses. Rude response all but guarantee rude replies.

You do not know how to facepalm properly either. People who don't own up to their own errors never can use that in the appropriate way. Why not work on some of your basic misunderstandings before you criticize others.
You have still provided No evidence. Just ad hominem. I know a lot about this subject of Slavery in the Bible. I've been researching it since the last time Skwim brought it up.
 

Dan Mellis

Thorsredballs
The Bible was not written down 600 years after Jesus.
The Quran was written 600 years after Christ.
The oldest "complete Bible dates from 360 AD.
the oldest New Testament manuscript fragments date from 80 AD.
The oldest references to the New Testament writings dates from 120 AD.
Just because we dont have the original manuscripts, does not mean that the NT was not in existance at the time of Paul and the Apostles.
Evidence shows that the New Testament was in full use in 69AD already.
Anyhow, the Bible condemns slavery, and what you read in the word "Slave" is something totally different.
Go check out my thread.

I honestly dont see why it matters when it was written. It's still a major flaw in the book - people can and do use these sort of things to justify violence and hate. Also, how do we go about seperating what is a human problem and what is a command from god? Is homophobia a human problem? What about the 10 commandments... maybe god wouldnt mind if I worshipped a bull?

Finally, slave means exactly what I read into it. You can buy and sell another human as property, and they are part of the inheritance you can leave your kids. Who cares if there were different rules for hebrews etc - the definition is clear.
 

Dan Mellis

Thorsredballs
@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.

I dont think it matters if theres evidence that people followed these directives, or how the slaves were treated. Even if we took for granted that not a single slave was harmed (we don't have any evidence for that either, the only thing that speaks on the subject is what's in the bible), owning another human as property is still wholly immoral - it goes against the basic human right to freedom.
 

Dan Mellis

Thorsredballs
I am sure most thinking Christians have the wit to realise scripture carries with it baggage from the milieu in which it was written and are capable of making due allowance for that.

As I've said in another post, I am rather hamstrung in this discussion by not being able to recall anywhere in the bible where slavery is put forward as morally virtuous. Can you help?

Its never held up as morally virtuous in itself - but it does have fairly clear rules on how to treat your slaves. To me, a truly virtuous book would only have something similar to this to say about slavery:

Owning slaves is evil. Slaves, don't obey your masters. Use every tool you can to escape and never look back.

The relevant places in the bible are...

Exodus 21:1-26
Ephesians 6:5
Collosians 3:22
Peter 2:18-20
 

Dan Mellis

Thorsredballs
Regarding Harsh treatment of non-jewish slaves... there are indeed limits placed on this: This is from the laws of servitude ( Sefer Avadim, Maimonides, Mishneh Torah)

"
It is permissible to have a Canaanite slave perform excruciating labor. Although this is the law, the attribute of piety and the way of wisdom is for a person to be merciful and to pursue justice, not to make his slaves carry a heavy yoke, nor cause them distress. He should allow them to partake of all the food and drink he serves. This was the practice of the Sages of the first generations who would give their slaves from every dish of which they themselves would partake. And they would provide food for their animals and slaves before partaking of their own meals. And so, it is written Psalms 123:2: "As the eyes of slaves to their master's hand, and like the eyes of a maid-servant to her mistress' hand, so are our eyes to God."

Similarly, we should not embarrass a slave by our deeds or with words, for the Torah prescribed that they perform service, not that they be humiliated. Nor should one shout or vent anger upon them extensively. Instead, one should speak to them gently, and listen to their claims. This is explicitly stated with regard to the positive paths of Job for which he was praised Job 31:13, 15: "Have I ever shunned justice for my slave and maid-servant when they quarreled with me.... Did not He who made me in the belly make him? Was it not the One who prepared us in the womb?"

Cruelty and arrogance are found only among idol-worshipping gentiles. By contrast, the descendants of Abraham our patriarch, i.e., the Jews whom the Holy One, blessed be He, granted the goodness of the Torah and commanded to observe righteous statutes and judgments, are merciful to all.

And similarly, with regard to the attributes of the Holy One, blessed be He, which He commanded us to emulate, it is written Psalms 145:9: "His mercies are upon all of His works." And whoever shows mercy to others will have mercy shown to him, as implied by Deuteronomy 13:18: "He will show you mercy, and be merciful upon you and multiply you."

This is chapter 9 of the book. The last chapter. The last page; the final words: "Be Merciful".

All of this is very nice, but you can still own slaves for hard labour. Its literally the first line. It doesn't matter how you treat your slaves. Owning them is awful.
 

Dan Mellis

Thorsredballs
Well this is true. Slavery was socially and morally acceptable in ancient times, it was just a part of normal everyday life.



It is.

You conveniently omit the fact it was Christian abolitionist who ended the slave trade in America.

This isn't about the american slave trade. Its about slavery in the bible.
 

Enoch07

It's all a sick freaking joke.
Premium Member
This isn't about the american slave trade. Its about slavery in the bible.

Then what's the issue? Slavery in the Bible happened in ancient times. Slavery was socially and morally acceptable then. Heck people sold themselves into slavery to survive even.
 

SA Huguenot

Well-Known Member
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.
Typical,
As soon as one proves one claim against the Bible as incorrect, some whize guy comes up with a truckload of other accusations.
My dear friend, we are talking about slavery in the Bible.
or, the perception from atheists and Muslims that the God of the Bible and Jesus condoned Slavery as an institution which was equal to the slave trade 300 years ago.
What I found is that such an accusation is a fabrication!

If You want to talk about something else, such as David and Saul, open another thread.
This one is for Slavery in the Bible.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Its never held up as morally virtuous in itself - but it does have fairly clear rules on how to treat your slaves. To me, a truly virtuous book would only have something similar to this to say about slavery:

Owning slaves is evil. Slaves, don't obey your masters. Use every tool you can to escape and never look back.

The relevant places in the bible are...

Exodus 21:1-26
Ephesians 6:5
Collosians 3:22
Peter 2:18-20
I think we can dispense with Exodus, as it is Old Testament, very primitive, like much of it and obviously superseded, for the Christian reader, by the teachings and examples in the New Testament. After all, thinking Christians don't take Genesis literally, nor - elsewhere in Exodus - the parting of the Red Sea, or indeed the Egyptian captivity itself, which I gather is thought ahistorical.

I've looked at the 3 epistles you quote and it strikes me as remarkable how consistent they all are. In context, all three passages, by two different writers, are at pains to stress that Christianity is not about overturning the social order but about how to live your life, spiritually, as an individual Christian. I do not know, but I start to suspect that there was perhaps a danger that the early Christians might become, or be seen to become, a revolutionary political movement. These writers seem (rightly, to my mind) anxious to stop that happening.

Willingness to accept one's lot in life, and make the best of it spiritually, which is what is recommended in these passages, is a feature of many world religions, not just Christianity.

It is not an endorsement of slavery.
 
Last edited:

SA Huguenot

Well-Known Member
I think we can dispense with Exodus, as it is Old Testament, very primitive, like much of it and obviously superseded, for the Christian reader, by the teachings and examples in the New Testament. After all, thinking Christians don't take Genesis literally, nor - elsewhere in Exodus - the parting of the Red Sea, or indeed the Egyptian captivity itself, which I gather is thought ahistorical.

I've looked at the 3 epistles you quote and it strikes me as remarkable how consistent they all are. In context, all three passages, by two different writers, are at pains to stress that Christianity is not about overturning the social order but about how to live your life, spiritually, as an individual Christian. I do not know, but I start to suspect that there was perhaps a danger that the early Christians might become, or be seen to become, a revolutionary political movement. These writers seem (rightly, to my mind) anxious to stop that happening.

Willingness to accept one's lot in life, and make the best of it spiritually, which is what is recommended in these passages, is a feature of many world religions, not just Christianity.

It is not an endorsement of slavery.
True in all regards.
Genesis is an ancient book, and very primitive indeed.
But I wont dispense of it so quickly.
The whole Gospel weighs on the creation of God being perfect, death through sin by Adam, jesus being the second Adam (prior to loosing immortality.
Even if one consider this unnessesary, the Creation epoch, Flood, and various scientific discoveries which was described by "Western scientists", and archaeological descriptions in Genesis, is enough for me to realise that Genesis is somehow superior to any other ancient writings humankind ever had.
I used to dislike the Old Testament, untill I found that without any of it, the Gospel will be a theory with no support.
Jesus himself said, you are making errors because you dont know the scriptures, nor the power of God.
Once I started to read the Old Testament, and scrutinised all the attacks against it, such as does science and the Bible creation contradict itself, I discovered that science received the Nebular Theory from Genesis etc.
Anyhow, I can paste the Old Testament to the New Testament with ease.
They support each other, they dont contradict at all.
Not like the Book of Mormon or the Quran.
Greetings
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
I dont think it matters if theres evidence that people followed these directives, or how the slaves were treated. Even if we took for granted that not a single slave was harmed (we don't have any evidence for that either, the only thing that speaks on the subject is what's in the bible), owning another human as property is still wholly immoral - it goes against the basic human right to freedom.
All of this is very nice, but you can still own slaves for hard labour. Its literally the first line. It doesn't matter how you treat your slaves. Owning them is awful.
And that's the difference between you and I. For me, morality is based on whether or not harm was done. The label, the title, and the legal definition ("people are property") are much less important than what people actually did.

Example:

When a sovereign ruler amassed large quantities of foreign slaves for a large building project. Is it moral or immoral? I propose, it's impossible to tell without more facts. A person would need to know:
  • how the slaves became slaves in the first place
  • how the monarch acquired the slaves
  • what were the living conditions before the monarch acquired them
  • what were the living conditions after the monarch acquired them
If the monarch used their army and literally stole people out of the homeland; where they were happy law abiding citizens; forced them to work long hours in harsh conditions; fed them poorly; treated them like property; then, that's immoral.

If the monarch purchased slaves who were already being treated horribly and improved their situation significantly; then, maybe it's not immoral.

Assuming that the first monarch is more likely based on the stories in the Bible and world history makes sense. But completely denying the possibility of the second monarch is a Presumption of Guilt.

Maybe looking at a less emotionally charged example will help?

Marriage. Marriage is defined in a very cold impersonal manner legally. But that's not what defines a marriage between two people. It's just cold and impersonal because that's how the law handles all issues.

If a couple gets married purely for the financial benefits and they don't really love each other or are committed to each other as a "till death do you part" couple; Are they actually married? In name only. Not in deed.

If a person is legally defined as a slave, but isn't treated like a slave are they still a slave?

You say, it doesn't matter how they are treated? Just listen to that?

It doesn't matter how they are treated???

...

Of course it matters how they are treated. If they are treated poorly, that is certainly worse that treating them well.

Just think about it. Doesn't it matter how they are treated? Does the legal definition matter more? or less? Does the label matter more or less?

-------------------------------------------------

I want to try to make one more point.

--------------------------------------------------

When speaking about genocide, gender issues, death penalty, rights for gay people, you and I both agree that applying a literal interpretation of the bible is literally immoral.

If, as I have shown for slavery, the actual law does not follow the literal interpretation either and encouraged kind and merciful treatment why is that irrelevant?

It has been shown that the bible critics who have replied to this thread do not know the law. The bible critics who replied to this thread assumed that the law followed the literal English translation. And they assumed that abusing a slave was allowed by law.

Can you honestly say that you, yourself did not assume that non-Jewish slaves could be legally beaten and humiliated based on the verses in the Old Testament, as long as they survived a few days after the beating?

Isn't it true that if I had ignored the legal details of Biblical Slavery, you would have maintained that assumption?

And doesn't it demonstrate a lack of intellectual integrity to claim that the legal definition is wholly irrelevant while earlier in the thread assuming that this sort of beating is legal, acceptable, and encouraged?

It all goes back to the fallacy of depending too much on a literal understanding of an English translation of the Old Testament. As I said, we both agree that a literal understanding would render immoral behavior.

If a Bible Critic literally refuses to accept that there is a deeper more complete, application of these verses in the face of evidence that supports it; then they are guilty of the same fallacy as anyone else who insists on reading the English translation of the Old Testament and applying it literally.

Why would a Bible critic insist on maintaining their attachment to the literal translation? To prove a point. That's all. Since there is no Biblical Slavery today, all that's left is the principle.
 
Last edited:

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
All of this is very nice, but you can still own slaves for hard labour. Its literally the first line. It doesn't matter how you treat your slaves. Owning them is awful.
If you're still with me, I am prepared to discuss the matters of "hard labor" and "ownership". But I'm not ready to debate them. I have an understanding of the concepts; but I am still looking for sources to back them up. I am not a Rabbi. Just an amateur enthusiast. Because of that, it's going to take time to verify the information I have been given regarding what is hard labor and why it's important to leave that as a legally acceptable option for foreign / non-Jewish slaves.

I can share with you what I have been told. It's not a secret. But if you want to discuss it now, lacking sources to back it up; it will need to be via PM.

Thank you,
 
Last edited:

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
Typical,
As soon as one proves one claim against the Bible as incorrect, some whize guy comes up with a truckload of other accusations.
My dear friend, we are talking about slavery in the Bible.
or, the perception from atheists and Muslims that the God of the Bible and Jesus condoned Slavery as an institution which was equal to the slave trade 300 years ago.
What I found is that such an accusation is a fabrication!

If You want to talk about something else, such as David and Saul, open another thread.
This one is for Slavery in the Bible.
I was merely presenting my opinion that The Bible is full of garbage, and provided some supporting points. I didn't feel I could simply state that The Bible is chock full of trash without providing at least a few points that I felt display this besides the slavery bit (which is a really, really good one), which was already being discussed. For example, that even relatively "mundane" things like the David/Saul bit were just terrible representations of ignorance and inanity - all the way up to even the heralded/celebrated major tenets have some glaring flaws like the 10 commandments.

You don't like my tactics in the discussion, take it up with my supervisor - who is also me -"Hi, how are you? I heard you have some complaints with my employee. He was just following orders... I told him to tick you off."
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Doesn't make it true though. Evil people use anything they can to justify their actions.
.
It's a lot easier for evil people to carry out evil actions when they are written down as clearly as they are in the Bible and supposedly commanded from the creator of the universe.

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
It was perpetuated using the same Bible that does not anywhere condemn the practice of owning human beings as property and instead provides instruction on exactly how to obtain and keep slaves.

Pure conjecture and speculation. Talk about inflating number and statistics to suit a narrative. Lumping current owners with previous owners and expecting owners? Sheesh
Pure conjecture and speculation was what your post on the matter was.

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?
Repeating your claims doesn't make them true.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Nah they were arguing against evil people twisting scripture to suit their own needs.;)
Where does the Bible say slavery is wrong?

It doesn't. Not anywhere.

If God wanted us all to know slavery was wrong, then perhaps he shouldn't have gone to such lengths to explain to us exactly how to do it.
 
Top