Slavery in the bible

[exchemist]

Nope!
The Dutch Reformed Church never used that claim to further Apartheid.
That was done by the ultra far right group which did not even ammount to 20 000 members.
On the contrary, the Protestant Churches in South Africa dismantled Apartheid on the grounds of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Apartheid was never a political idiology to subdue Black people into slavery, It was a principle the White Afrikaners tried in South Africa to allow "Seperate development for all 11 Black nations where they couls rule themself with their own governments.
However, they Black people did not want to rule themself, but they wanted to take over the only first world country in Africa to decimate the White Afrikaner nation who bought and died for their country.
Let me prove to you why the Afrikaners were correct!
They, the Afrikaners had one of the strongest economies in Africa, the best Universities, Municipalities, water supply, electricity supply, infrastructures, hospitals, doctors, and,and,and...
Black people had employment, medical, safe policing, homes and,and,and.
After the ANC Communist Socialist took over, our land went into the drain.
Our schools, univercities, electrical compoany, municipalities went totally bancrupt, everything gets burned down, unemployment is more than 36%, Whites are murdered daily by torture, burning them with electric irons, beating them with axes, disemboweling them, women raped, then killed, children skinned in front of their parents,and no one says anything.

There is not a single government official who can claim he is not corrupt. The broadcasting company, Airways, mining industry, are used as a source for cash to pay socialist grants to everyone who dont want to work, but demands handouts.
Our petrol are sold at 60% higher than the actual feul price, to keep the government going.

Guys, South Africa is an example of Communists and socialists taking over a country, and destroying it on the principles of Atheist marxism.
Please dont talk about South Africa, if you dont know what is actually going on.
The Communists destroyed Mocambique, Zimbabwe, Angola, and now South Africa with illigal immigration, open borders, government grants, and all those rotten socialist practices.
Look at how Venezuela went the same path, and it is now practiced on the USA!
be carefull of what you laugh at, Communism and socialism is at your own door soon.

Perhaps I am mistaken, then, about the theological grounds the Dutch Reformed Church used. I had always been led to believe it was based on this Noah story.

But it is a fact that the Dutch Reformed Church was kicked out of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches for its attempts to develop a theology of apartheid. Encyclopaedia Britannica has this to say about that episode:

QUOTE
The NGK until 1986 supported the government’s policy of apartheid (separate development for the races) and had commissioned several studies to develop theological justification for it. Their findings were rejected by Reformed churches in Europe and the United States, and the NGK was excluded from membership in the World Alliance of Reformed Churches (WARC) at Ottawa in August 1982. At the same time, the WARC pronounced apartheid to be a heresy in violation of the Scriptures. The NGK withdrew from the World Council of Churches in 1961 and severed relations with the Netherlands Reformed Church in the Netherlands in 1978.

UNQUOTE

Can you perhaps enlighten us all by explaining what their theology justifying apartheid was actually based on? I think they would have struggled to do it from the gospels.

 

[Cooky]

So then the question becomes, why didn't God condemn and forbid it, as he supposedly did with so many other mundane things like wearing mixed fabrics or eating shellfish? I mean, we're talking about owning human beings as property here.

The bible is not a "tell all"... The Papal Bulls clarified it, as well as Thomas Aquinas, when the Church condemned it.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

if you were a criminal 1000 years ago, would you prefer a life sentence in a dirt floored prison cell, or a life of slavery?

Or how about death or slavery..? Because I doubt they'd keep you around just to feed you everyday back then.

So what you're saying is that you would advocate that we give prisoners in today's society the "mercy" of letting them choose to be slaves to someone else, right? So you would advocate the institution of slavery in modern times if it meant getting people off of death row, or out of prison cells? You're basically saying that it would be a "mercy" to them, right? So why not? What's the problem? If it was good for people 2,000 years ago, then what suddenly makes it immoral now? That's what a lot of Biblical theists keep claiming... that things were "different" back then. So different that slavery was entirely moral? Or was it that it still wasn't moral, but God didn't have the heart to tell the people so back then? Maybe He was afraid it would hurt their poor wittle feewings? So instead He writes up rules indicating when to punish people who beat their slaves to death, and when not to. Sound like a fair and just compromise? Yeah... I don't think so either.

 

[exchemist]

Really? My ancestors were Dutch Reformed.. I have heard of the Curse of Ham all my life as a justification of slavery and thought it was BS.

They claimed Africans were descended from Ham.. The Hamites. Its also a language group and I think Abraham considered them "Canaanites".


1 Chronicles 4:40 And they found fat pasture and good, and the land was wide, and quiet, and peaceable; for they that dwelt there aforetime were of Ham.

Hamites | Encyclopedia.com
https://www.encyclopedia.com/.../anthropology-and-archaeology/people/hamites
Hamites, African people of caucasoid descent who occupy the Horn of Africa (chiefly Somalia and Ethiopia), the western Sahara, and parts of Algeria and Tunisia. They are believed to be the original settlers of N Africa.

Well I see my claim has been challenged by this far-right white bloke from South Africa. Let's see what he has to say.

 

[Cooky]

So what you're saying is that you would advocate that we give prisoners in today's society the "mercy" of letting them choose to be slaves to someone else, right? So you would advocate the institution of slavery in modern times if it meant getting people off of death row, or out of prison cells? You're basically saying that it would be a "mercy" to them, right? So why not? What's the problem? If it was good for people 2,000 years ago, then what suddenly makes it immoral now? That's what a lot of Biblical theists keep claiming... that things were "different" back then. So different that slavery was entirely moral? Or was it that it still wasn't moral, but God didn't have the heart to tell the people so back then? Maybe He was afraid it would hurt their poor wittle feewings? So instead He writes up rules indicating when to punish people who beat their slaves to death, and when not to. Sound like a fair and just compromise? Yeah... I don't think so either.

I don't see your point.

 

[sooda]

Well I see my claim has been challenged by this far-right white bloke from South Africa. Let's see what he has to say.

My family also hated the English and left New Amsterdam for Virginia in 1664 when it became NY..

My ancestors were Dutch sea captains for the Dutch West Indies Company.. so they were hauling slaves to Brazil.

It is what it is.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The bible is not a "tell all"... The Papal Bulls clarified it, as well as Thomas Aquinas, when the Church condemned it.

Except for those 611 commandments, none of which happen to condemn slavery, for some reason.
God has no problem commanding people not to eat shellfish but for some reason couldn't be bothered to tell people it's immoral to own other human beings? Come on.

 

[Cooky]

My family also hated the English and left New Amsterdam for Virginia in 1664 when it became NY..

My ancestors were Dutch sea captains for the Dutch West Indies Company.. so they were hauling slaves to Brazil.

It is what it is.

So were mine. My great grandpa famously publushed the first written map of new amsterdam in the 1600's.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I don't see your point.

Ugh... not this crap again. Are people's brains just on the fritz, or are these deliberate attempts to duck and dodge? I'll spell it out for you Landon:

You implied that I should rather be a slave than spend time in prison, or be put to death. This was you attempting to excuse the institution of slavery in Biblical times as an actual form of "mercy," because apparently being a slave, rather than die or live life in prison, is (in your mind at least) preferable.

With me so far?

So, with the fact that you tried to excuse slavery as a form of mercy, you apparently think it is morally superior to imprisonment or capital punishment. If that is the case (here's the real question now, try not to miss it) - DO YOU BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD OFFER LIFETIME-PRISONERS OR DEATH-ROW INMATES IN MODERN TIMES THE OPTION TO BE SLAVES TO SOMEONE ELSE? And if not, then why not? What changed about morality since those Bible times that makes it unacceptable now?

 

[SA Huguenot]

Nonsense.

Well, how can anyone argue with someone who obviously knows more than anyone on History.
Forget the contempory historians, and even pagan writers,
Tacitus 55 to 118AD
[N]either human effort nor the emperor’s generosity nor the placating of the gods ended the scandalous belief that the fire had been ordered [by Nero]. Therefore, to put down the rumor, Nero substituted as culprits and punished in the most unusual ways those hated for their shameful acts … whom the crowd called “Chrestians.” The founder of this name, Christ [Christus in Latin], had been executed in the reign of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate … Suppressed for a time, the deadly superstition erupted again not only in Judea, the origin of this evil, but also in the city [Rome], where all things horrible and shameful from everywhere come together and become popular.
Lucian of Samasota.
For having convinced themselves that they are going to be immortal and live forever, the poor wretches despise death and most even willingly give themselves up. Furthermore, their first lawgiver persuaded them that they are all brothers of one another after they have transgressed once for all by denying the Greek gods and by worshiping that crucified sophist himself and living according to his laws.

What about Pliny the Younger who wrote to Emperor Trajan on how he should kill the Christians?
And Trajan who answered, if they are guilty of being Christian, they should be executed.
Anyhow,
It is an historical fact that there was no less than 10 persecutions up untill 313AD when Constantine gave an edict to stop persecuting the Christians.
Please, Please sharpen up on your history before accusing me of "Nonsense"

 

[Cooky]

Except for those 611 commandments, none of which happen to condemn slavery, for some reason.
God has no problem commanding people not to eat shellfish but for some reason couldn't be bothered to tell people it's immoral to own other human beings? Come on.

Don't go with Sola Scriptura. Go with the Church.

 

[leov]

You know the word Slav, for Slavic people is derived from "slave"..?

The Slavs were often sold as slaves to the Arabs.

Russians have about 10 versions of where that world came from. Most popular version is from rive "Slavutich" along which many tribes settled, the second from word "Slava" that means glory.

 

[Cooky]

Ugh... not this crap again. Are people's brains just on the fritz, or are these deliberate attempts to duck and dodge? I'll spell it out for you Landon:

You implied that I should rather be a slave than spend time in prison, or be put to death. This was you attempting to excuse the institution of slavery in Biblical times as an actual form of "mercy," because apparently being a slave, rather than die or live life in prison, is (in your mind at least) preferable.

With me so far?

So, with the fact that you tried to excuse slavery as a form of mercy, you apparently think it is morally superior to imprisonment or capital punishment. If that is the case (here's the real question now, try not to miss it) - DO YOU BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD OFFER LIFETIME-PRISONERS OR DEATH-ROW INMATES IN MODERN TIMES THE OPTION TO BE SLAVES TO SOMEONE ELSE? And if not, then why not? What changed about morality since those Bible times that makes it unacceptable now?

California roads are crap. Yes, the state should make them work. Train them and put them to work.

...I'm not for selling them though.

 

[Audie]

Well, how can anyone argue with someone who obviously knows more than anyone on History.
Please, Please sharpen up on your history before accusing me of "Nonsense"

Your sarcasm does not well cover your lie
about me.

Your claim of millions is nonsense. You can
provide no basis for it.

 

[Audie]

Ugh... not this crap again. Are people's brains just on the fritz, or are these deliberate attempts to duck and dodge? I'll spell it out for you Landon:

You implied that I should rather be a slave than spend time in prison, or be put to death. This was you attempting to excuse the institution of slavery in Biblical times as an actual form of "mercy," because apparently being a slave, rather than die or live life in prison, is (in your mind at least) preferable.

With me so far?

So, with the fact that you tried to excuse slavery as a form of mercy, you apparently think it is morally superior to imprisonment or capital punishment. If that is the case (here's the real question now, try not to miss it) - DO YOU BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD OFFER LIFETIME-PRISONERS OR DEATH-ROW INMATES IN MODERN TIMES THE OPTION TO BE SLAVES TO SOMEONE ELSE? And if not, then why not? What changed about morality since those Bible times that makes it unacceptable now?

"slavery is mercy" Orwell forgot to mention that one.

 

[Cooky]

"slavery is mercy" Orwell forgot to mention that one.

I would prefer it over death personally.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Don't go with Sola Scriptura. Go with the Church.

This thread is about slavery in the Bible.

 

[exchemist]

Simply stating this doesn't make it true. Can you describe, in detail, precisely why my analogy is not valid? Segregation was legal at the time in the U.S. I am referencing, like slavery was legal during the time the pertinent parts of The Bible were written. Beating someone is what I chose as the legal situation, and this too is a thing permissible within slavery according to The Bible. Exactly what makes my analogy unfair or inapplicable? I eagerly await your analysis. Based on the fact that you mention "modern U.S. society", I'm going to guess that you'll cite that our ideas of beating people have changed since the time of The Bible. But I would, honestly, fail to see how in the world you felt this excuses The Bible from legally sanctioning the beating of people to death - again, if they survive for at least a couple of days, you are legally permitted beating a slave to a point that results in their death. That's what The Bible says, clear as day. Are you saying that there was a time during which this was moral? And moral to whom? To the people who lived at the time? To God? Because if it wasn't moral to God, I doubt He would have had this crap written into His book, eh? Again - please answer this question. What makes my analogy invalid?


Describing under what circumstances you are legally allowed to beat your slaves to death (because again, let's never, ever allow Christians to forget, if they still die, but do so after 2 or 3 days, this exempts the master from punishment), may not be directly "endorsing" slavery. That is... it doesn't prescribe that you go get some slaves, and does not prescribe that you beat them. Fine. But allowing something under the law is done with the knowledge that there will be those interested in doing what is allowed under the law. It is, at least, a tacit show of support for the institution. Just as our government in the U.S. allows our citizens to own and conceal/carry guns. This is tacit support of owning and carrying guns. The government doesn't PRESCRIBE that you go out and buy a gun, but they support your doing so at your own discretion. If they DIDN'T support it... it wouldn't be law.

Happy? The Bible supports slavery.

I can't follow this at all, I'm afraid. Slavery was an established practice in the ancient societies of the time. It seems to me the New Testament (which is what defines Christianity) barely refers to slavery and does not, so far as I can recall, attempt to commend or justify it. Do you have evidence that it does? If so in what passages?

 

[dybmh]

So then the question becomes, why didn't God condemn and forbid it, as he supposedly did with so many other mundane things like wearing mixed fabrics or eating shellfish? I mean, we're talking about owning human beings as property here.

• God didn't condemn and forbid owning a slave in the text of the Old Testament at that time.
• According to the Old Testament abstaining from eating shellfish is not mundane.
• According to the Old Testament abstaining from mixing wool and linen is not mundane.

 

[SA Huguenot]

Except for those 611 commandments, none of which happen to condemn slavery, for some reason.
God has no problem commanding people not to eat shellfish but for some reason couldn't be bothered to tell people it's immoral to own other human beings? Come on.

Did you miss out on :

(Deuteronomy 24:7) If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel, and maketh merchandise of him, or selleth him; then that thief shall die; and thou shalt put evil away from among you.
And:
1Timothy 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
1Timothy 1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for men-stealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
1Timothy 1:11 According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.

Or did you choose not to read what I wrote, but still decided to beat the drum on God condoned slavery?
Come on my friend. Take the time and read what I found, and then critisize.
This is the accepted philosophical test of discovering truth.
Not investigating and assumtive reasoning is a terrible mistake for anyone's intelligence.