The Bible And Slavery

[steve_bank]

Nope - its about consistency.

What does this have to do with the bible and slavery?

Bad people using, abusing the bible to do bad stuff is part of the same wider problem as when people use science to support bad stuff.

There is corruption, fraud, and politics in science overall. No debate bout that, but so what?

Nuff said. You make my point very well.

All human organizations are prone to corruption.

Whats that got to do with the bible and the slave trade? Oh WAIT!
You just answered your own Op.

The Vatican is notorious for sex and financial scandals in the last 50 years.

[no true scotsman argument goes here]

Science is not a morality.

The economics of slavery are not a morality either.

If you want morality you need to go to the bible.

The bible condemns greed.
The bible says the love of money is the root of all evil.
The bible says the worker is entitled to a wage.
The bible says theft (wage theft) is a sin.

Take a look at the Code Of Hammurabi. In comparison the bible is a somewhat silly disconnected set of writings that people piece together and claim moral absolutes.

The 10 Commandments are not unique in any way.

Confucius was a good moral philosopher. What constitutes a good moral human being? How does one live.

Does the bible guide your daily life and how you elate to people and our current serious moral issues? I doubt it. I have never met a Christian who could answer that question.

In contrast in my building is a Buddhist who lives the moral code of Buddhism.

 

[Politesse]

Slavery was the norm in the ancient world

In some places, certainly. That doesn't make it either morally defensible or historically inevitable.

 

[skepticalbip]

Slavery was the norm in the ancient world

In some places, certainly. That doesn't make it either morally defensible or historically inevitable.

Really? What areas of the world (where there were people) never had slavery in 'ancient times'.

There are places that still have slavery.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/10/17/this-map-shows-where-the-worlds-30-million-slaves-live-there-are-60000-in-the-u-s/

 

[Politesse]

Slavery was the norm in the ancient world

In some places, certainly. That doesn't make it either morally defensible or historically inevitable.

Really? What areas of the world (where there were people) never had slavery in 'ancient times'.

There are places that still have slavery.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/10/17/this-map-shows-where-the-worlds-30-million-slaves-live-there-are-60000-in-the-u-s/

I'm baffled as to what sort of point you're trying to make, and suspicious of your motivations in trying to make it. But of course there have been plenty of civilizations that did not keep slaves. Even within the "Classical World", the Greeks' ancient foes the Achaemenids had no insitution of slavery, as Herodotus remarked on with disdain in the world's first ethnological work. China did not adopt the practice until the 3rd c. BCE, and went through a few periods of abolition after that. Further abroad, of course, there were many slaveless cultures, even slaveless continents, such as Australia for instance.

Of course ther are still slaves in the US. There are still legal slaves in the US, as per our Constitution. I oppose the practice, however, as morally repugnant. And will continue to do so regardless of what cultures do or not agree wiht me on an institutional level. We all have choices. Even those whose dignity has been stolen by greed and stupidity.

 

[DBT]

In the Achaemenid Period

''At the beginning of the Achaemenid period, the institution of slavery was still poorly developed in Iran. In Media a custom existed whereby a poor man could place himself at the disposal of a rich person if the latter agreed to feed him. The position of such a man was similar to that of a slave. However, he could at any time leave his master if he was poorly fed (see I. M. D’yakonov [Diakonoff], Istoriya Midii, Moscow and Leningrad, 1956, pp. 334-35). By the time their own state had emerged (the first half of the 6th cent. b.c.), the Persians knew only of such primitive slavery, and slave labor was not yet economically significant.''

''The most common term to designate slaves in ancient Iran was the word bandaka-, a derivative of banda- “bond, fetter” (see banda and Kent, Old Persian, p. 199). This word was utilized not only to designate actual slaves, but also to express general dependence. For instance, in the Behistun [Bīsotūn] inscription, Darius I calls his satraps and generals his bandakas(in the Babylonian version qallu “slave”). Likewise Darius I calls Gadates, his governor in Ionia, his slave (doulos; see W. Dittenberger, Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum I, Leipzig, 1915, no. 22), just as in many countries of the ancient East, all the subjects of the king, including even the highest-ranking officials, were considered slaves of the king. Therefore the Greek authors wrote that, with the exception of the king, the entire Persian people were a crowd of slaves (see, e.g., Herodotus, 7.135; Xenophon, Anabasis 2.5.38). In the same way, the authority of the heads of patriarchal families over members of their own families was tyrannical and they could treat their children as slaves (see Aristotle, Ethica Nicomachea 9.12).''

 

[steve_bank]

One of the first international problem the U faced was the Barbary Pirates. They raided the Mediterranean coast for their slave markets.

Infidels were considered fair game.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_pirates

The raids were such a problem coastal settlements were seldom undertaken until the 19th century. Between 1580 and 1680 corsairs were said to have captured about 850,000 people as slaves and from 1530 to 1780 as many as 1,250,000 people were enslaved.[1] However, these numbers have been questioned by the historian David Earle

The black historian Fates did a series on slavery. He went and traced it through Africa. Whites did not go into the interior. Black tribes bought slaves out to the coast. He identified a modern African family who's wealth traces back to the slave trade.

Slavery was part of the economy. Sparta I belie relied on slaves, of course Rome. Certainly referenced in the bible.

 

[Aesthete]

Jesus said whoever commit sin is a slave of sin. The concept of slavery is actually seen in the New Testament repeatedly, and most Bible translations don't pick up on it. But in the Greek the word "doulos" unequivocally means "slave." There are other words for a hired servant, but doulos refers to someone who is the property of another. But the King James Version largely translates doulos as "servant."

Here's the deal about slavery: the natural man is not actually free. He's a slave to the law of sin and death. He is in bondage to the elements of the world. This is because our first parents chose a lie, "ye shall not surely die," due to lust, "ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." So instead of having everything freely provided to us by God, and having dominion over creation which God had given us, our first parents chose rebellion and wanted to be like God. And so, you see the effects of that. God wonderfully designed creation, but allowed corruption to set in because of sin. So now our bodies age, we suffer, we die, and we lack. And we must work and toil all the days of our lives for the fruit of the ground, the ground from which God formed us. What good is it to be "free" if you're a wage slave in this world? And if you want anything in this world, you must spend all your life and time toiling for it. And even if you've got extra riches without hard work, it's only temporary.

But the child of God is free! We have an eternal, and incorruptible inheritance. Indeed, "all things" are ours (1 Cor 3:21). And He that spared not His only Son, how shall He not with Him give us all things? (Romans 8:32). So we are free, but as the New Testament repeatedly tells us, we are slaves of God. We are not mere hired servants, because a hired servant is free to leave his master. But we are not free to leave God. The one who has been born again is a new creature in Christ, and is sealed. So we are become dead to the law by the body of Christ (Rom 7:4). We are no longer slaves of sin and death, but of God and righteousness. We are not our own, but bought with a price. And why? Because God so loved us. He so loved us that He has bound us to Himself and that we will be His forever, and so that we will thank and worship Him forever.

But in the meantime, we're still in the world. Yet, having this promise, we can be content in all situations. Whether we're free or slaves in worldly terms, we've escaped the corruption that is in the world. No, Jesus did not preach against slavery. He did not preach against oppressive government like Rome. He came to give His life as a ransom for many. He came to get us out of true slavery so that we can worship Him, and love Him, and reign with Him forever!

 

[Politesse]

Jesus said whoever commit sin is a slave of sin. The concept of slavery is actually seen in the New Testament repeatedly, and most Bible translations don't pick up on it. But in the Greek the word "doulos" unequivocally means "slave." There are other words for a hired servant, but doulos refers to someone who is the property of another. But the King James Version largely translates doulos as "servant."

Doulos had the literal meaning of "slave", but was also commonly used metaphorically in the ancient world, just as you have done here.

 

[DBT]

In the ancient world, slaves, human beings, were bought and sold.

People owned slaves, human beings, they had bought in the market for their own purposes or use.

The bible does not appear to condemn this practice.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

In the ancient world, slaves, human beings, were bought and sold.

People owned slaves, human beings, they had bought in the market for their own purposes or use.

The bible does not appear to condemn this practice.

The english word itself did not come about for another 13 centuries. There was a greek word denoting "slave" certainly. My understanding is that slavery wasn't particularly noticed by early christians. Further, sometimes the translation is into "servant." I don't know why that is but it would certainly change the meaning of a passage.

But yes, slavery was around and it wasn't anything that christianity or christians took notice of. And as you say, nowhere is it condemned in any books of the bible.

 

[Politesse]

In the ancient world, slaves, human beings, were bought and sold.

People owned slaves, human beings, they had bought in the market for their own purposes or use.

The bible does not appear to condemn this practice.

The english word itself did not come about for another 13 centuries. There was a greek word denoting "slave" certainly. My understanding is that slavery wasn't particularly noticed by early christians.

Not true, slavery was highly controversial in the early Christian years, and became a major political issue after the Christianization of Rome.

 

[DBT]

In the ancient world, slaves, human beings, were bought and sold.

People owned slaves, human beings, they had bought in the market for their own purposes or use.

The bible does not appear to condemn this practice.

The english word itself did not come about for another 13 centuries. There was a greek word denoting "slave" certainly. My understanding is that slavery wasn't particularly noticed by early christians.

Not true, slavery was highly controversial in the early Christian years, and became a major political issue after the Christianization of Rome.

Whatever the early Christians happened to believe about slavery or what they said or wrote about it, the bible itself does not condemn slavery.

 

[Politesse]

Not true, slavery was highly controversial in the early Christian years, and became a major political issue after the Christianization of Rome.

Whatever the early Christians happened to believe about slavery or what they said or wrote about it, the bible itself does not condemn slavery.

This has been a matter of common disagreement from the very beginning, with both sides believing themselves certainly and unquestionably correct. A situation that continues to this very day, as the recent case in the US state of Nebraska attests.

Do you want to start hurling Bible verses back and forth until we get tired? I can even play both sides, if you like, the "wham texts" used in both cases are more than familiar to me.

 

[DBT]

Not true, slavery was highly controversial in the early Christian years, and became a major political issue after the Christianization of Rome.

Whatever the early Christians happened to believe about slavery or what they said or wrote about it, the bible itself does not condemn slavery.

This has been a matter of common disagreement from the very beginning, with both sides believing themselves certainly and unquestionably correct. A situation that continues to this very day, as the recent case in the US state of Nebraska attests.

Do you want to start hurling Bible verses back and forth until we get tired? I can even play both sides, if you like, the "wham texts" used in both cases are more than familiar to me.

No need to hurl bible quotes back and forth...if you believe the bible condemns slavery, just cite the evidence.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

In the ancient world, slaves, human beings, were bought and sold.

People owned slaves, human beings, they had bought in the market for their own purposes or use.

The bible does not appear to condemn this practice.

The english word itself did not come about for another 13 centuries. There was a greek word denoting "slave" certainly. My understanding is that slavery wasn't particularly noticed by early christians.

Not true, slavery was highly controversial in the early Christian years, and became a major political issue after the Christianization of Rome.

I'm having trouble understanding the gist of your point. Maybe I'm thick. So what even if if it was controversial? What exactly does that get us historically? Christians owned and marketed in slaves for almost two more millenia. That it may have been as controversial as anything else "christian" seems moot.

 

[Politesse]

Not true, slavery was highly controversial in the early Christian years, and became a major political issue after the Christianization of Rome.

I'm having trouble understanding the gist of your point. Maybe I'm thick. So what even if if it was controversial? What exactly does that get us historically? Christians owned and marketed in slaves for almost two more millenia. That it may have been as controversial as anything else "christian" seems moot.

I don't really have a "point", other than I think people are throwing around some extreme claims -either that Christianity is entirely complicit or entirely exonerated - from the history of slavery, neither of which is true. The real story is painted in shades of gray, as is often true. There have been slavers and abolitionists throughout the entire history of the faith, and still are. While I can see why an atheist would want to believe that there is only one type of Christian with a single unified viewpoint, that is not the case. So if you're jumping into the pot saying that the Bible clearly defends slavery, you aren't so much making an argument against Christianity as a whole, so much as taking the pro- slavery side in an intra-Christian debate about the Bible's position.

Personally, I acknowledge that the pro-slavery faction exists, and believes itself to be justified by Scripture, but I do not agree with them. Even if one accepted, as you know I do not, that Biblical support ought to be the litmus test for Christian behavior, I don't think the book itself takes a consistent position on the issue, and see any participation in slave markets/prisons etc as an abject failure of the more important Christian principle of universal and unequivocal love for one's neighbor. I think this did not occur to many of the Bible's authors, slavery having been so prevalent in their time as to be ubiquitous. But by the time the historical record of Christianity starts in earnest, there were many, even a majority, who felt the way I do on the matter.

 

[Politesse]

This has been a matter of common disagreement from the very beginning, with both sides believing themselves certainly and unquestionably correct. A situation that continues to this very day, as the recent case in the US state of Nebraska attests.

Do you want to start hurling Bible verses back and forth until we get tired? I can even play both sides, if you like, the "wham texts" used in both cases are more than familiar to me.

No need to hurl bible quotes back and forth...if you believe the bible condemns slavery, just cite the evidence.

So you do want me to just post a bunch of verses, and then you'll post a bunch of verses, and we'll just go on and on? It sounds boring to me, but okay.

Gal. 3:28

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Matt 12:29-31

"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ No other commandment is greater than these. ​

Please note the underlined statement.

Matt 25:31-46

“When the Son of Man comes as King and all the angels with him, he will sit on his royal throne, and the people of all the nations will be gathered before him. Then he will divide them into two groups, just as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the righteous people at his right and the others at his left. Then the King will say to the people on his right, ‘Come, you that are blessed by my Father! Come and possess the kingdom which has been prepared for you ever since the creation of the world. I was hungry and you fed me, thirsty and you gave me a drink; I was a stranger and you received me in your homes, naked and you clothed me; I was sick and you took care of me, in prison and you visited me.’ The righteous will then answer him, ‘When, Lord, did we ever see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you a drink? When did we ever see you a stranger and welcome you in our homes, or naked and clothe you? When did we ever see you sick or in prison, and visit you?’ The King will reply, ‘I tell you, whenever you did this for one of the least important of these followers of mine, you did it for me!’ “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Away from me, you that are under God's curse! Away to the eternal fire which has been prepared for the Devil and his angels! I was hungry but you would not feed me, thirsty but you would not give me a drink; I was a stranger but you would not welcome me in your homes, naked but you would not clothe me; I was sick and in prison but you would not take care of me.’ Then they will answer him, ‘When, Lord, did we ever see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and we would not help you?’ The King will reply, ‘I tell you, whenever you refused to help one of these least important ones, you refused to help me.’ These, then, will be sent off to eternal punishment, but the righteous will go to eternal life.”
​

Yes, I know you have proof texts to throw back. You're not the first Evangelical I ever met, and I know your arguments and your verses. I spent much of the last year advocating for an aboilitionist project in my home country (which, by the way, succeeded) and you get a lot of Bible verses thrown at you when you do that. I've read them and I don't care. Imprisoning another human being is still wrong, and an utter failure of the best virtues of the faith. I am less interested in whether you can quote I Timothy at me, than whether or not you can make a consistent logical argument as to how you can love someone as much as yourself but also exploit them for your personal benefit concurrently. Whether you can make a convincing moral case for why a person who is not supposed to value wealth in the first place, can without contradiction or hypocrisy attempt to purchase a human being. If you can't, then your so-called Biblical proofs are full of straw, not stone. But you care more about taking down your "enemies" than actually freeing slaves, or you wouldn't be attacking abolitionist Christians in the first place. Tell me, what have you done lately to end the practice? Because it seems to me that your kind of advocacy is more likely to hurt slaves than help them. An atheist slaver wouldn't care about Bible verses either way, and a Christian slaver would correctly interpret your arguments as support for their position. So who are you helping, and why? It sure as hell isn't the slaves.

 

[DBT]

Yes, I know you have proof texts to throw back. You're not the first Evangelical I ever met, and I know your arguments and your verses.

Evangelist? Where did that come from? I simply asked for evidence that the bible condemns slavery....how is that 'evangelism?'

''There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.''

That doesn't work so well because it doesn't address the reality of one's station or status in the world. A slave who is 'one in Christ' is no less a slave, for example. This verse does not necessarily condemn slavery.

"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ No other commandment is greater than these.

That is better as far as implications go, but it doesn't specifically condemn slavery. A slave owner can show kindness and love toward his slaves, yet still own them because they have their station in life and he has his. The practice of slavery is not disowned....''Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart.'' Ephesians

 

[James Brown]

If the phrase, "There is neither slave nor free," is a condemnation of slavery, then of what is "There is neither Jew nor Greek" a condemnation?

If "There is neither slave nor free" is meant to mean, "No one should be a slave nor a slave owner," then what are we to make of "There is neither male nor female"?

 

[Politesse]

Evangelist? Where did that come from? I simply asked for evidence that the bible condemns slavery....how is that 'evangelism?'

Evangelicalism, not Evangelism. You're peddling their regressive and ignorant views on what the Bible contains and how it ought to be read by the modern reader, whether intentionally or not.

That is better as far as implications go, but it doesn't specifically condemn slavery. A slave owner can show kindness and love toward his slaves, yet still own them because they have their station in life and he has his. The practice of slavery is not disowned....

That's a fat load of horse shit. Who wants to be ""loved" like a slave owner loves their possessions? The verse doesn't say "Show superficial love toward your possessions." It says, treat others as you would be yourself like to be treated. Are you keen to be next up on the auction block, as long as you get a "nice owner"? These disgusting Victorian Era apologetics still get brought up whenever slavery is under discussion, but I have no tolerance or patience for it. The ownership of human beings is a repugnant, unforgiveable practice. The Bible does not need to spell out, "Stop doing slavery", for this to be true. The Bible's actual moral teachings make no sense unless it is true.