Slavery in the bible

Subduction Zone said:

I really do not care what excuses an Orthodox Jew of today would give for the past bad behavior of his people. One merely has to apply logic as to why those books were written the way that they were written.

Click to expand...

Your opinion of what the verses mean, and your opinion of the intention of those who wrote those verses is irrelevant.

What matters is what those verses mean to people who believe in them.

Do you understand that part at least?

And... do you have any evidence of this past bad behavior. if not it is a presumption of guilt which is immoral and unethical.

Subduction Zone said:

It should have included slaves, but for some odd reason the supposed omniscient God never made that clear. In fact if one reads the Gospel it is clear that it does not have an anti-slavery stance, in fact it too appears pro-slavery if anything. From the Wiki article on slavery in the Bible:

"In Eph 6:5-8, Col 3:22-24, 1Tim 6:1-2 and Titus 2:9-10, Saint Paul instruct slaves to obey their masters.[99][100][101][102] In Ephesians 6:9, Paul instructs masters to "do the same things to [their slaves]" as he had commanded slaves to do unto their masters, which is to "[r]ender service with enthusiasm, as to the Lord"[103][104] In 1Pet 2:18, Saint Peter also instructs slaves to obey their masters.[105] In Col 4:1 Paul instructs masters to "treat your slaves justly and fairly."[106] In Romans 1:1, Paul metaphorically calls himself a "slave of Christ Jesus,"[107] and later, in Romans 6:20-21, he writes about the metaphor of slavery to sin.[108] In Gal 3:27-29, Paul says that in the church there is "neither slave nor free person,...for you are all one in Christ Jesus."[109] In Revelation, two angels call themselves fellow slaves (coworkers) of Saint John."

The Bible and slavery - Wikipedia

Click to expand...

Are any of these direct quotes from Jesus? It looks like these are disciples, correct?

SkepticThinker said:

At best it can be taken to mean "love your slave." But it doesn't say that slavery is immoral or wrong.

Click to expand...

You have some messed up morals if you interpret that as love your slave....

It's clear to love everyone and not mistreat them. That would mean not forcing then to be a slave.

dybmh said:

Your opinion of what the verses mean, and your opinion of the intention of those who wrote those verses is irrelevant.

What matters is what those verses mean to people who believe in them.

Do you understand that part at least?

And... do you have any evidence of this past bad behavior. if not it is a presumption of guilt which is immoral and unethical.

Click to expand...

The meaning of those verses is abundantly clear. The question is why do you go so far to defend those ancient peoples? They were no better nor worse than other people of that time. They were highly flawed by today's standards. That is to be expected. They owned slaves and were not particularly nice to them.

dybmh said:

Are any of these direct quotes from Jesus? It looks like these are disciples, correct?

Click to expand...

No, but Jesus never said anything negative about slavery either. It depends about what one thinks that Jesus was. Many of the posters here think that he was God. Again, if that was the case why not say that slavery is wrong? He would have known that the Bible's lack of condemnation along with its rules on how to treat a slave would be taken as approval of slavery by many.

Subduction Zone said:

The meaning of those verses is abundantly clear.

Click to expand...

The meaning of the verses is clear to you. Your approach makes sense for a Bible Critic. Someone who believes in God and the value of the scripture would ask the same questions. the difference is that someone who believes in God and values the scripture would value the evidence collected on further investigation. A perspective of a Bible Critic ignores the evidence provided by further explanation.

Isn't that what you are doing?

You ignore all other verses. You ignore the Jewish Law. You ignore the rules for interpreting these verses. You ignore how the verses are applied.

It's fine. No one is asking you to change your view. All I am asking is for you to support the claim you have made.

Subduction Zone said:

I really do not care what excuses an Orthodox Jew of today would give for the past bad behavior of his people.

Click to expand...

This isn't the first time this claim has been made in this thread.

Do you have any evidence of this bad behavior?

Subduction Zone said:

The question is why do you go so far to defend those ancient peoples?

Click to expand...

Several reasons:

My primary reason is to learn. The longer this debate goes on, the more I am learning and the more evidence I am going to bring.

On the other hand, the longer this debate goes on, what evidence can you bring? All you have is an English translation. Taken on it's own ignoring all other verses, it is weak evidence. There is the "what else could it be?" argument. Which is also weak evidence.

Moving on...

Subduction Zone said:

They were highly flawed by today's standards.

Click to expand...

Can you bring any evidence to support this claim?

Here is a list of claims you have made.

1) You claim ancient Jewish people exhibited bad behavior.
2) You claim that the definition of "harsh" beating is clearly stated in the verses of the Old Testament.
3) You claim that Ancient people who believed that Torah was from God ( that is who you are speaking about, right? ) were highly flawed by today's standards.

Do you have evidence for any of this?

Subduction Zone said:

They owned slaves and were not particularly nice to them.

Click to expand...

Here's another claim.

People who owned slaves were not nice to them.

Do you have evidence to support this claim?

Please note: The only claims I have made in this thread are:

The verses in the in the Old Testament that speak about Biblical Slavery do not reflect what was encouraged by Orthodox Judaism.

The opinion of Biblical Critics about these verses is irrelevant compared to the opinion about these verses to someone who believes that the Scripture is authoritative.

Criticisms about Biblical Slavery are a solution looking for a problem to solve.

The belief that it is OK to beat a slave as long as it survives a day or two is would be descriptive of a new religion "Slavery-ism" which ignores all other verses in the Bible in favor of 100 verses.

dybmh said:

The meaning of the verses is clear to you. Your approach makes sense for a Bible Critic. Someone who believes in God and the value of the scripture would ask the same questions. the difference is that someone who believes in God and values the scripture would value the evidence collected on further investigation. A perspective of a Bible Critic ignores the evidence provided by further explanation.

Isn't that what you are doing?

You ignore all other verses. You ignore the Jewish Law. You ignore the rules for interpreting these verses. You ignore how the verses are applied.

It's fine. No one is asking you to change your view. All I am asking is for you to support the claim you have made.



This isn't the first time this claim has been made in this thread.

Do you have any evidence of this bad behavior?

Several reasons:

My primary reason is to learn. The longer this debate goes on, the more I am learning and the more evidence I am going to bring.

On the other hand, the longer this debate goes on, what evidence can you bring? All you have is an English translation. Taken on it's own ignoring all other verses, it is weak evidence. There is the "what else could it be?" argument. Which is also weak evidence.

Moving on...



Can you bring any evidence to support this claim?

Here is a list of claims you have made.

1) You claim ancient Jewish people exhibited bad behavior.
2) You claim that the definition of "harsh" beating is clearly stated in the verses of the Old Testament.
3) You claim that Ancient people who believed that Torah was from God ( that is who you are speaking about, right? ) were highly flawed by today's standards.

Do you have evidence for any of this?



Here's another claim.

People who owned slaves were not nice to them.

Do you have evidence to support this claim?

Please note: The only claims I have made in this thread are:

The verses in the in the Old Testament that speak about Biblical Slavery do not reflect what was encouraged by Orthodox Judaism.

The opinion of Biblical Critics about these verses is irrelevant compared to the opinion about these verses to someone who believes that the Scripture is authoritative.

Criticisms about Biblical Slavery are a solution looking for a problem to solve.

The belief that it is OK to beat a slave as long as it survives a day or two is would be descriptive of a new religion "Slavery-ism" which ignores all other verses in the Bible in favor of 100 verses.

Click to expand...

Breaking up a post excessively is always rude. It is a form of quote mining which usually is done in an attempt to lie. Changing text without notes is borderline rule breaking.

How about trying to respond properly?

Subduction Zone said:

No, but Jesus never said anything negative about slavery either.

Click to expand...

You are ignoring the evidence provided by Enoch07. You value the verses by the disciples, but you do not value the verses that quote Jesus. That doesn't sound like Christianity.

It is Bible-Criticism applied in a dogmatic manner. In the previous posts I proposed that the religion you are describing might be called "Salvery-ism". But maybe the religion is "Bible-Criticism"? It's tenets would be to dogmatically ignore all biblical scholarship except for verses that confirm a negative bias of the text.

Subduction Zone said:

Many of the posters here think that he was God.

Click to expand...

Has this been presented in this thread? Is Jesus' divine status been used as evidence for anything?

If it is important it proves that the words of the disciples should be much much less valuable that the words of God, right?

So I guess you can choose if Jesus' status is important to include in this debate.

Subduction Zone said:

Again, if that was the case why not say that slavery is wrong?

Click to expand...

According to Christians Jesus did say it; but didn't use the word "slavery". As a Bible-Critic it is perfectly fine for a person to require this. But as long as a Christian understands the verses that quote Jesus as prohibiting slavery **and** as long as they follow this prohibition, then there is no problem.

Subduction Zone said:

He would have known that the Bible's lack of condemnation along with its rules on how to treat a slave would be taken as approval of slavery by many.

Click to expand...

This part is historically false, sub. I'm sorry. You are right that Jesus knew the law. The law, as I have shown, discourages slave ownership by taxing each slave and by the excessive regulation attached to slave ownership.

Also, many Christians believe that Jesus' approach was to correct faults in the law. If Jesus knew the law ( which is your claim ) and perceived the law as discouraging ownership then there is no reason to make an explicit statement about it. Also, if Jesus knew the law ( which is your claim ) and saw that abolishing slavery would have caused a refugee crisis and possibly a war, there would be no reason to make an explicit statement about it. Even more likely, if Jesus knew that his life was in danger and explicit statements against the law would have resulted in a premature end to his ministry, then even more reason to avoid making explicit statement prohibiting slavery. it would make much more sense to speak poetically and cryptically, which is what is reflected in the Bible.

please note: You asked "why didn't Jesus make an explicit statement himself". I provided 3 plausible explanations. "Why not" "Why didn't" "They must have beat their slaves or else why have the rule". All of this is flat earth logic. "Why doesn't a ball roll down a flat surface if the earth is round."

Will the religion of "Bible-Criticism" or "Slavery-ism" value any of these plausible explanations? No.

Is there any religious person who is advocating for re-establishing Biblical Slavery? No.

Are the objections by a Bible-Critic to the verses in Bible that speak about slavery relevant? No.

Subduction Zone said:

Breaking up a post excessively is always rude. It is a form of quote mining which usually is done in an attempt to lie. Changing text without notes is borderline rule breaking.

How about trying to respond properly?

Click to expand...

Please show me where I changed your text.

Subduction Zone said:

Breaking up a post excessively is always rude. It is a form of quote mining which usually is done in an attempt to lie. Changing text without notes is borderline rule breaking.

How about trying to respond properly?

Click to expand...

Your complaint is style. That is usually a distraction from a lack of evidence.

I was reading another post where the complaint was the opposite.

Subduction Zone said:

Breaking up a post excessively is always rude. It is a form of quote mining which usually is done in an attempt to lie. Changing text without notes is borderline rule breaking.

How about trying to respond properly?

Click to expand...

Feel free to report the rule breaking. I categorically deny that a rule has been broken.

dybmh said:

Your complaint is style. That is usually a distraction from a lack of evidence.

I was reading another post where the complaint was the opposite.

Click to expand...

Nope, you may not realize it but your "style" is rude.


Try again if you want a conversation. Otherwise all you will get are corrections.

dybmh said:

Feel free to report the rule breaking. I categorically deny that a rule has been broken.

Click to expand...

Ignorance is not an excuse. It was a small part of your post, but it was part of a continuing bit of rudeness. I have seen people that are far worse than you are when it comes to altering posts.

Subduction Zone said:

Ignorance is not an excuse. It was a small part of your post, but it was part of a continuing bit of rudeness. I have seen people that are far worse than you are when it comes to altering posts.

Click to expand...

Please feel free to correct me. All I know is that I am following the example of many other debates. I replied to your posts line by line. The only statement that is taken out of order was quoted that way because the claim has been presented repeatedly, and my requests for evidence seem to be ignored.

Misquoting, if i remember, is a rule violation IF it misrepresents the original post.

I am 99% sure I have accurately represented your words. No words of yours have been changed.

I am debating forcefully and passionately. If that is rude, I will certainly attempt to soften my language in future posts.

However, in my experience, a high per post word count can be confused as being rude. That part is subjective, and I reserve the right to present my arguments using as many words as I deem best demonstrates the intention of my arguments.

Thank you,

Subduction Zone said:

Breaking up a post excessively is always rude. It is a form of quote mining which usually is done in an attempt to lie. Changing text without notes is borderline rule breaking.

How about trying to respond properly?

Click to expand...

Maybe God didn't write the bible..Maybe the Levites did.

sooda said:

Maybe God didn't write the bible..Maybe the Levites did.

Click to expand...

It is clear that it was written by various Hebrews over the years. I cannot understand why some people try to defend the indefensible.

dybmh said:

Please feel free to correct me. All I know is that I am following the example of many other debates. I replied to your posts line by line. The only statement that is taken out of order was quoted that way because the claim has been presented repeatedly, and my requests for evidence seem to be ignored.

Misquoting, if i remember, is a rule violation IF it misrepresents the original post.

I am 99% sure I have accurately represented your words. No words of yours have been changed.

I am debating forcefully and passionately. If that is rude, I will certainly attempt to soften my language in future posts.

However, in my experience, a high per post word count can be confused as being rude. That part is subjective, and I reserve the right to present my arguments using as many words as I deem best demonstrates the intention of my arguments.

Thank you,

Click to expand...

Lesson number one. Excessive breaking up of a post is rude. It is also quite often dishonest since people tend to take more than one sentence to come up with ideas. You did not refute. You merely did the internet equivalent of plugging your ears and shouting.

dybmh said:

Feel free to report the rule breaking. I categorically deny that a rule has been broken.

Click to expand...

That made me laugh

Don't fomat your post in a way I dislike

What's next,, your use of colour caused displeasure

Anyway we only started tackling slavery a few hundred years ago. Any criticism of the Bible on this subject can be leveled everyone alive before we started trying. And everyone who isn't actively working for the end of slavery today is condoning it

Subduction Zone said:

Nope, you may not realize it but your "style" is rude.


Try again if you want a conversation. Otherwise all you will get are corrections.

Click to expand...

Sounds like you're attempting to divert the post by attacking the person not the content in my view. What's the matter run out of arguments?

Subduction Zone said:

Lesson number one. Excessive breaking up of a post is rude. It is also quite often dishonest since people tend to take more than one sentence to come up with ideas. You did not refute. You merely did the internet equivalent of plugging your ears and shouting.

Click to expand...

Everyone is different, this is your preference; it is noted. I can certainly adjust. I will go back through your posts, quote them as you have requested.

Questions: When I do that will you have evidence to back up your claims? Or am I misreading your replies and you have made no claims?