The Bible And Slavery

[DBT]

If station in life is seen as the will of God, rather than abolish what God has put into place, the imperative may to treat slaves kindly.

I agree. So what does it mean to treat a person with kindness? Can you answer the question of who was a good neighbor to the injured man? Or, to put it another way, can you tell the difference between "treating someone kindly" but still enslaving them, as opposed to treating them with kindness and also liberating from the greatest burden and pain of their life?

A matter of interpretation where undeniable condemnation is not given.

No, it isn't. However, to follow Christ's teachings and also keep a slave would be impossible. So, "The Bible" does not endorse slavery. It is a matter of interpretation, but your interpretation is logically indefensible and morally repugnant, so why should I give it the time of day?

It's possible for a slave owner to be kind to his slaves without questioning the institution of slave ownership. According to some accounts, it ranged from utter brutality to owners who treated their slaves like family.

You know how compartmentalized the human mind can be.

 

[Politesse]

I agree. So what does it mean to treat a person with kindness? Can you answer the question of who was a good neighbor to the injured man? Or, to put it another way, can you tell the difference between "treating someone kindly" but still enslaving them, as opposed to treating them with kindness and also liberating from the greatest burden and pain of their life?



No, it isn't. However, to follow Christ's teachings and also keep a slave would be impossible. So, "The Bible" does not endorse slavery. It is a matter of interpretation, but your interpretation is logically indefensible and morally repugnant, so why should I give it the time of day?

It's possible for a slave owner to be kind to his slaves without questioning the institution of slave ownership. According to some accounts, it ranged from utter brutality to owners who treated their slaves like family.

You know how compartmentalized the human mind can be.

Clearly it can, since you think being treated "like family" is somehow a suitable substitute for freedom. I'm sure we all know some assholes who claim to treat their employees "like family", and slave owners often make the same inhuman claim. But family doesn't beat you if you refuse to labor for them. Family doesn't sell you. Family doesn't sell your children. There is no suitable substitute for a life not in bondage, though it doesn't surprise me to see you pulling out tired old pro-slavery propoganda at this point, as helping slaves was never your objective in this thread -- attacking those who practice a different religion from you was always your goal, no matter what might happen to slaves or not. laves, you don't give a shit about. Shall we tell the dozens of young girls being trafficked into this country as sex slaves -as we speak- not to worry, because if they're lucky their new "uncles" might treat them as family? I'm sure we can find some who will agree that they plan to.

I predict that your arguments will get even more depraved as we go along, now that you realize it is the very notion of love that you must argue against.

And in any case, you never answered the question. Who was the better neighbor?

 

[DBT]

I agree. So what does it mean to treat a person with kindness? Can you answer the question of who was a good neighbor to the injured man? Or, to put it another way, can you tell the difference between "treating someone kindly" but still enslaving them, as opposed to treating them with kindness and also liberating from the greatest burden and pain of their life?



No, it isn't. However, to follow Christ's teachings and also keep a slave would be impossible. So, "The Bible" does not endorse slavery. It is a matter of interpretation, but your interpretation is logically indefensible and morally repugnant, so why should I give it the time of day?

It's possible for a slave owner to be kind to his slaves without questioning the institution of slave ownership. According to some accounts, it ranged from utter brutality to owners who treated their slaves like family.

You know how compartmentalized the human mind can be.

Clearly it can, since you think being treated "like family" is somehow a suitable substitute for freedom. I'm sure we all know some assholes who claim to treat their employees "like family", and slave owners often make the same inhuman claim. But family doesn't beat you if you refuse to labor for them. Family doesn't sell you. Family doesn't sell your children. There is no suitable substitute for a life not in bondage, though it doesn't surprise me to see you pulling out tired old pro-slavery propoganda at this point, as helping slaves was never your objective in this thread -- attacking those who practice a different religion from you was always your goal, no matter what might happen to slaves or not. laves, you don't give a shit about. Shall we tell the dozens of young girls being trafficked into this country as sex slaves -as we speak- not to worry, because if they're lucky their new "uncles" might treat them as family? I'm sure we can find some who will agree that they plan to.

I predict that your arguments will get even more depraved as we go along, now that you realize it is the very notion of love that you must argue against.

And in any case, you never answered the question. Who was the better neighbor?

You seem to have missed the point. At no point did I say or claim that treating slaves like family is a substitute for freedom.

I could explain what I meant again but I suspect that too would be misconstrued.

A clue lies in mental compartmentalization, that a slave owner may see no contradiction between owning slaves, their station in life/ the will of God, and treating them kindly.

This has nothing to do with what I 'believe.'

 

[Politesse]

Clearly it can, since you think being treated "like family" is somehow a suitable substitute for freedom. I'm sure we all know some assholes who claim to treat their employees "like family", and slave owners often make the same inhuman claim. But family doesn't beat you if you refuse to labor for them. Family doesn't sell you. Family doesn't sell your children. There is no suitable substitute for a life not in bondage, though it doesn't surprise me to see you pulling out tired old pro-slavery propoganda at this point, as helping slaves was never your objective in this thread -- attacking those who practice a different religion from you was always your goal, no matter what might happen to slaves or not. laves, you don't give a shit about. Shall we tell the dozens of young girls being trafficked into this country as sex slaves -as we speak- not to worry, because if they're lucky their new "uncles" might treat them as family? I'm sure we can find some who will agree that they plan to.

I predict that your arguments will get even more depraved as we go along, now that you realize it is the very notion of love that you must argue against.

And in any case, you never answered the question. Who was the better neighbor?

You seem to have missed the point. At no point did I say or claim that treating slaves like family is a substitute for freedom.

I could explain what I meant again but I suspect that too would be misconstrued.

A clue lies in mental compartmentalization, that a slave owner may see no contradiction between owning slaves, their station in life/ the will of God, and treating them kindly.

This has nothing to do with what I 'believe.'

Ah. I generally say what I mean. I especially don't accidentally spout pro-slavery propaganda in place of an actual point, then claim to "not believe" the hypothetical person I have just conjured.

I take it then that this confused, mentally-comprtmentalized imaginary slaver is the best argument you can come up with for why Jesus' commandment to love others could possibly allow for slavery? Because that person would be wrong if they existed, disastrously and abominably wrong to believe what they do, and you have just admitted that you do not think they are right either. So they aren't a very strong argument, are they?

 

[Rhea]

https://thechurchoftruth.org/god-jesus-condone-slavery/

The bible was used by whites to justify slavery. In the climate today of symbols of Confederate oppressions, it would seem like the bible should also be held up tp scrutiny.

Just a reminder of what this topic is about.

The Bible IS USED TO JUSTIFY slavery because it does not unequivocally CONDEMN it and therefore leaves itself open to be used this way.

It does not matter if this is “right” or “wrong,” incidentally, it is true. The bible is used thusly because it makes itself easily usable.

The argument from atheists is that if your holy book is so badly written that it can be used so easily for evil, then it is not believable that it is holy.
Interestingly, the defenders have to do much, much more dancing and equivocating and inferring to claim the bible is not complicit than the proponents have to do to claim it is supportive of their cause.

And the claim that the “holy” bible cannot be amended, clarified or updated is the nail in the coffin of its plausibility as “holy”. If stopping slavery is part of its intent, it does such a poor job of it that we cannot take seriously that it had that intent or that it is holy.

That’s the point.

So the excuses that it doesn’t mean the to you fails to help the slavery question. The excuse that if you read it just so to make it be nice - fails to help the slavery question.

Anyone who claims that the bible does not explicitly condone slavery is tacitly confessing that it is very badly written. Anyone who claims to know what it really means is confessing that it is badly written. Anyone who claims that it must be read “in the holy spirit” is confessing that the bible itself is unrealiable and requires intervention. And everyone who is thereby confessing that it is badly written is demonstrating that it is not divine.

It’s useless. Implausible. Undivine.
It is used easily and repeatedly to support slavery. That cannot be excused away. It is. It has been. By hundreds of thousands of people.

 

[Politesse]

I am not a supporter of textual literalism, as you well know. But I have shown why slavery is inconsistent with Christ's teachings as recorded in the Bible. If it "can be used" to justify slavery only by using it dishonestly, it doesn't matter whether the Bible exists or not, or what it specifically says. the same bad actors would dishonestly employ whatever book, philosophy, or ethic served their interests. As indeed most people do anyway. But I do think Christians should call other Christians out on this immoral and dishonest bullshit, and there's no reason atheists couldn't do the same. You're letting your religious apologetics get in the way of your social and moral responsibilities. Killing Christianity is not more important than saving people.

The excuse that if you read it just so to make it be nice - fails to help the slavery question.

You are reading it "just so" to claim that it supports slavery. How is that supposed to help any slave? You really think that slave-owning Christians who believe that slavery is morally acceptable are going to: (1.) deconvert from their faith, (2.) convert to enlightened atheist humanism (3.) change their mind about the ethics of slavery (4.) and emancipate their property at the cost of their own livelihood? All at a go? And you're accusing me of hanging too much confidence in "making it be nice"?

You lot haven't advanced any sort of argument as to why slavery is wrong, you've only been putting forth pro-slavery arguments this whole time, and encouraging evil-minded Christians in the false belief that they can love their neighbor as themsleves and enslave them simultaneously. You are a false teacher of the faith, and it's not even your faith. Let it go. But then, I suspect you aren't really as opposed to slavery as you say you are, either. Do you actually take steps to help the enslaved? Do you avoid the material benefits of slave labor? Unpaid or underpaid people have made many of the products in your life. What have you done to help them, aside from spreading the same Bible-lite propaganda that their owners or exploiters also cheerfully spread?

And not a one of you is being honest, here. I notice that still, no one has been brave anough to answer my question. Because you know that true love and slavery are incompatible, yet are spreading this ancient lie anyway, knowingly promulgating dishonesty and valuing winning some stupid religious battle over truly helping your neighbors in need. You say I can't make my point without "equivocation", but you cannot answer the simplest of questions from the Lord himself, and prefer instead to appeal a cobbled-together blend of the most arcane points of Levitical law and the personal letters of apocryphal Pauls to make your case. Just like the fundamentalists you admire so much for their so-called "consistency", an Orwellian renaming if I ever heard one.

 

[Bomb#20]

There are distinctions related to one's station in life to consider, the rulers of the world are there by the 'will of God,' as are soldiers, merchants, craftspeople, blacksmiths, etc, and slaves - slaves obey your master being the instruction. To love one's neighbor does not remove them from their station in life, be it king or slave.

This is exactly right. What people often overlook in this argument is that human rights and freedom and rule of law as important values in themselves weren't generally part of the zeitgeist at the time. They're memes that evolved over the last thousand-odd years -- nobody would have written a Magna Carta in the 1st century. Experiments in democracy were mostly dead, and even in those, most of the people had had no vote. It was an authoritarian age. Only the emperor was free in the modern sense. Everybody else had a boss who was unaccountable to those below him. "Freeing" a slave simply transferred his required obedience up one level in the hierarchy, from his master to the local magistrate (or more likely to a neighborhood don). It wasn't seen as correcting a defect in society; it was seen as promoting an underling who'd earned it.

"To transfer into far-off centuries all the ideas of the century in which one is living is the most fecund of all sources of error." - Montesquieu

It's possible for a slave owner to be kind to his slaves without questioning the institution of slave ownership. According to some accounts, it ranged from utter brutality to owners who treated their slaves like family.

Or both.

"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do." - Exodus 21:7

"Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him." - Proverbs 13:24

Slaves were just another form of underling, much like children. Treating slaves like family meant treating them like 1st-century Judeans were expected to treat family, not treating them the way 21st-century Americans are expected to treat family.

As for Jesus's own view on the question, this verse might offer a hint:

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." - Matthew 5:18

 

[DBT]

Clearly it can, since you think being treated "like family" is somehow a suitable substitute for freedom. I'm sure we all know some assholes who claim to treat their employees "like family", and slave owners often make the same inhuman claim. But family doesn't beat you if you refuse to labor for them. Family doesn't sell you. Family doesn't sell your children. There is no suitable substitute for a life not in bondage, though it doesn't surprise me to see you pulling out tired old pro-slavery propoganda at this point, as helping slaves was never your objective in this thread -- attacking those who practice a different religion from you was always your goal, no matter what might happen to slaves or not. laves, you don't give a shit about. Shall we tell the dozens of young girls being trafficked into this country as sex slaves -as we speak- not to worry, because if they're lucky their new "uncles" might treat them as family? I'm sure we can find some who will agree that they plan to.

I predict that your arguments will get even more depraved as we go along, now that you realize it is the very notion of love that you must argue against.

And in any case, you never answered the question. Who was the better neighbor?

You seem to have missed the point. At no point did I say or claim that treating slaves like family is a substitute for freedom.

I could explain what I meant again but I suspect that too would be misconstrued.

A clue lies in mental compartmentalization, that a slave owner may see no contradiction between owning slaves, their station in life/ the will of God, and treating them kindly.

This has nothing to do with what I 'believe.'

Ah. I generally say what I mean. I especially don't accidentally spout pro-slavery propaganda in place of an actual point, then claim to "not believe" the hypothetical person I have just conjured.

Hypothetical? Slavery was a fact in biblical times. People owned slaves. It was lagal. It was an institution.

To own slaves requires a state of mind where ownership of slaves becomes acceptable.

To do that there must be a mental separation between the owner and the slave. To achieve that mental separation requires a rationale.

I take it then that this confused, mentally-comprtmentalized imaginary slaver is the best argument you can come up with for why Jesus' commandment to love others could possibly allow for slavery? Because that person would be wrong if they existed, disastrously and abominably wrong to believe what they do, and you have just admitted that you do not think they are right either. So they aren't a very strong argument, are they?

Slave owners existed. They had beliefs about the practice. The beliefs they held about the practice of slavery made it acceptable for them to own slaves.

Meanwhile, the bible does not explicitly condemn slavery. It instructs owners on how slaves should be treated and tells slaves that they should obey their masters.

 

[Politesse]

Ah. I generally say what I mean. I especially don't accidentally spout pro-slavery propaganda in place of an actual point, then claim to "not believe" the hypothetical person I have just conjured.

Hypothetical? Slavery was a fact in biblical times. People owned slaves. It was lagal. It was an institution.

To own slaves requires a state of mind where ownership of slaves becomes acceptable.

To do that there must be a mental separation between the owner and the slave. To achieve that mental separation requires a rationale.

I take it then that this confused, mentally-comprtmentalized imaginary slaver is the best argument you can come up with for why Jesus' commandment to love others could possibly allow for slavery? Because that person would be wrong if they existed, disastrously and abominably wrong to believe what they do, and you have just admitted that you do not think they are right either. So they aren't a very strong argument, are they?

Slave owners existed. They had beliefs about the practice. The beliefs they held about the practice of slavery made it acceptable for them to own slaves.

Yes, I know that. You know that. But they are wrong. And you know that, or you would have answered my question straightforwardly. The one who alleviates suffering is the good neighbor. Not the one who causes it, or by inaction allows it to continue. There is no room is Christ's teachings for such cruelty. Leviticus is irrelevant. No one follows the Levitical rules, not even the Jews themselves and certainly not any Christian I have ever met. Nor did Jesus love those who placed law above people. Rather, he disowned them entirely.

 

[Rhea]

There is no room is Christ's teachings for such cruelty.

You keep saying that, like there weren’t hundreds of thousands of Christians who felt the bible said something different.

My point is that your bible has severely problematic statements against “Christ’s Teachings” as evidenced by every single “Christian” who spouts those problematic statements and the “irrelevant” parts of this supposedly divine book - and doubly by those who spout them from the pulpit. Your god FAILED to write a book that made them understand that.

This makes your book unreliable and not believable.

The fact that you think Leviticus is irrelevant should make to you seek to have it removed from your book. Instead you spend time trying to convince us that it should be kept, but ignored.

Crazy.

 

[Rhea]

But family doesn't beat you if you refuse to labor for them. Family doesn't sell you. Family doesn't sell your children.

It does in the bible...
And frankly, it does in the real world, too.

 

[Politesse]

There is no room is Christ's teachings for such cruelty.

You keep saying that, like there weren’t hundreds of thousands of Christians who felt the bible said something different.

My point is that your bible has severely problematic statements against “Christ’s Teachings” as evidenced by every single “Christian” who spouts those problematic statements and the “irrelevant” parts of this supposedly divine book - and doubly by those who spout them from the pulpit. Your god FAILED to write a book that made them understand that.

This makes your book unreliable and not believable.

The fact that you think Leviticus is irrelevant should make to you seek to have it removed from your book. Instead you spend time trying to convince us that it should be kept, but ignored.

Crazy.

I'm obviously well aware of the existence of Christian slavers, my entire involvement in this thread has been to argue that atheists ought not blindly repeat their nonsense.

I don't worship a book. I don't believe in burning them either, but I don't recall ever making some passionate defense of the book of the Levites. Are you aware of some Christian sect that follows its guidance on most aspects of life? Because I am not. Whether or not they admit it, most Christians ignore most of Leviticus most of the time, unless they need an arbitrarily chosen passage to use as a clobber verse for soemthing.

 

[Politesse]

But family doesn't beat you if you refuse to labor for them. Family doesn't sell you. Family doesn't sell your children.

It does in the bible...
And frankly, it does in the real world, too.

If that's the kind of world you're fighting for, I hope you do not succeed.

 

[Jarhyn]

But family doesn't beat you if you refuse to labor for them. Family doesn't sell you. Family doesn't sell your children.

It does in the bible...
And frankly, it does in the real world, too.

If that's the kind of world you're fighting for, I hope you do not succeed.

I think her point was that the bible has examples of a LOT of really fucked up shit. You remember the story about Joseph where his brothers robbed and beat him then sold him into slavery because he got a fancy coat from his dad?

 

[Rhea]

There is no room is Christ's teachings for such cruelty.

You keep saying that, like there weren’t hundreds of thousands of Christians who felt the bible said something different.

My point is that your bible has severely problematic statements against “Christ’s Teachings” as evidenced by every single “Christian” who spouts those problematic statements and the “irrelevant” parts of this supposedly divine book - and doubly by those who spout them from the pulpit. Your god FAILED to write a book that made them understand that.

This makes your book unreliable and not believable.

The fact that you think Leviticus is irrelevant should make to you seek to have it removed from your book. Instead you spend time trying to convince us that it should be kept, but ignored.

Crazy.

I'm obviously well aware of the existence of Christian slavers, my entire involvement in this thread has been to argue that atheists ought not blindly repeat their nonsense.

I don't worship a book. I don't believe in burning them either, but I don't recall ever making some passionate defense of the book of the Levites. Are you aware of some Christian sect that follows its guidance on most aspects of life? Because I am not. Whether or not they admit it, most Christians ignore most of Leviticus most of the time, unless they need an arbitrarily chosen passage to use as a clobber verse for soemthing.

Are you really unable to see the point I am making? I have been perfectly clear that I do not promote slavery or the use of the bible for evil. I have been achingly obvious about the fact that I see the existence of those condoning statements as prolonging the evil and wishing they be excised from canon as inhumane. I have been explicit that I do not want any books burned but I do want to have the world embrace that these ideas are not divine or even acceptable as "parable."

Are you really and honestly saying that you do not understand my point? Even if you disagree with it, are you really saying you are unable to comprehend my position?

 

[Rhea]

It’s interesting to watch you run away from the things the Bible plainly says, and try to accuse me, the one condemning it, as if I’m creating your problem. As if my pointing out how it harms your desire to call your bible a Good Book makes me, somehow, the author of the harm.

No. The harm is in your book. It is plain as day. It makes the book undivine, unreliable as a guide and harmful on humanity. And all that was true before I ever read it. I’m not the author here. Pilitesse and Learner and Lion all defend and make excuses for it.

 

[skepticalbip]

It’s interesting to watch you run away from the things the Bible plainly says, and try to accuse me, the one condemning it, as if I’m creating your problem. As if my pointing out how it harms your desire to call your bible a Good Book makes me, somehow, the author of the harm.

No. The harm is in your book. It is plain as day. It makes the book undivine, unreliable as a guide and harmful on humanity. And all that was true before I ever read it. I’m not the author here. Pilitesse and Learner and Lion all defend and make excuses for it.

It is rather odd that they claim that the Bible is the "word of god" so is holy but they condemn much that is in that Bible by denying that it says what it says.

It would be much more consistent to recognize the Bible as writings by ancient peoples condoning their particular way of life... a way of life that is generally condemned in modern societies.

ETA:
Or is it that they just ignore a great deal of the Bible and cherry pick the parts they like?

 

[skepticalbip]

double post deleted.

 

[ideologyhunter]

So...Jesus' teachings are incompatible with owning slaves? Then, again, and with insistence: where did he address it explicitly and headlong?
His hell teachings alone tell me that love and forgiveness, which are cardinal virtues to Christians, are not absolutes in the gospels. New Testament God will condemn you outright for blaspheming against the Holy Ghost, and if you believe Jesus' words on the afterlife, about 70% of humanity deserves everlasting torment (the kind of punishment that is carried out for its own sake, since it is permanent and will not lead to recociliation) on doctrinal grounds alone. But still, he must have been anti-slavery, and he must have loved puppies? He not only instructs his disciples that his teachings are for the Jews alone (apparently holding this position until his followers report his Ascension), but he spends an awful lot of time describing the wailing and gnashing of teeth for those who don't accept him as the Son of God.
We know how consistently the American slave-owning class defended their practice with Biblical backup. They had a good case, it seems to me.

 

[Politesse]

It would be much more consistent to recognize the Bible as writings by ancient peoples condoning their particular way of life...

I've never described it in any other fashion.

Or is it that they just ignore a great deal of the Bible and cherry pick the parts they like?

I don't ignore it, but I don't think it would be possible to avoid "cherry picking" a document that records a great diversity of viewpoints from across the millennia. What I despise people who claim to be speaking for the whole book, but who are just as quick as me to favor some of its ideas and reject others. You lot are ignoring what I would consider to be the most important of the Bible's teachings in favor of following the most atrocious elements of ancient law you can find. You don't read the Bible like a book. You copy and paste little bits and verses from here and there and slop them together into a Frenkaenstein's monster built from your own desires.

LionIRC and Aesthete and I are not on the same side here; I am not a fundamentalist, and I am opposed to slavery. I have never held any other position. I don't think this should be a question of religous belief in the first place; slavery is a horror no mater what your religious background might be. But those who try to exploit religion to support slavery, whether they are Christian or atheist, I will always oppose.