Slavery In The Bible: It's Not Indentured Servitude

[ladsin]

I've talked about this subject enough to warrant a Take on it for future use. Here I'm going to talk about every single usage of the terms slavery or servant that I'm aware of, and if you are aware of some I missed, by all means point it out.

Old Testament

Exodus 21

The first 11 verses in this chapter are about hebrew slaves/ servants. It explicitly states this "If you buy a Hebrew servant" (2). This is different from our current understanding of slavery, instead it appears to be closer to a bond-servant. This man is allowed to leave in the 7th year; however, the very next verse allows for a loophole. If a servant's master gives him a wife and he has children with her, then when he goes free, they do not. They remain the eternal servants of his master. He is however allowed to choose to enslave himself forever though if he so wishes. I also wanted to point out here that women are treated differently here. Women are not allowed to go free unless the master chooses, or he is found to be neglecting her of food, clothing, or her "marital rights."

Then the rest of the chapter 12-36 covers various forms of personal injury, but there are two in particular about how slaves are allowed to be treated.

20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.

26 “An owner who hits a male or female slave in the eye and destroys it must let the slave go free to compensate for the eye. 27 And an owner who knocks out the tooth of a male or female slave must let the slave go free to compensate for the tooth.

Leviticus 25

This portion starts with rules for the "Sabbath year" or rules for the land in the 7th year. This section just says that the ground is not to be worked and you, your family, your servants, and your animals are free to eat of whatever happens to grow.

Then the Year of Jubilee section talks about what to do every ~49th year. It mostly involves treating your fellows fairly and rules about what to sell etc. Then in verses 39-55 there is a distinction made between hebrew and non-hebrew slaves. Hebrew slaves are to go free because:

for the Israelites belong to me as servants. They are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt.

But regular slaves are not, in fact they:

You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life

Deuteronomy 24

This section begins with a rule about re-marrying an old spouse, newlyweds can't go to war, and then in verse 7 we have a verse that talks about servants/slavery:

If someone is caught kidnapping a fellow Israelite and treating or selling them as a slave, the kidnapper must die. You must purge the evil from among you

The rest doesn't pertain to this talk, but covers general ideas of fairness, don't deny justice, leave food for the poor, etc.

Deuteronomy 20

This chapter has to deal with wartime and starts with stating who is allowed to get out of a war. Starting in verse 10:

10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace.11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subjectto forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the Lordyour God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it.14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies

The chapter goes on to state that these are only for cities that are far away. The other, closer ones are to be put to death without question. Every single thing that has the breath of life.

Deuteronomy 23

This section starts with exclusion from the assembly, then talks about uncleanness in the camp. One of the more humorous rules here is that if a man has a nocturnal emission he has to leave the camp XD The reference to slavery here is one which many people will bring up in regards to this topic, yet all it says is that if a slave has taken refuge with you (from another people group) you are not to hand them back to their master. It seems that people think this means that if any slave escaped they were not to be given back, but it's specifically talking about a refugee, not a normal slave. (15)

New Testament

1 Timothy 1

Timothy is not normally considered to be one of the authentic paulean epistles, but I'll still address it anyway. Timothy is about listening to false teachers and there's a brief mention about how "men stealers" are contrary to sound doctrine. People will bring this up to try and say that the Bible/ Jesus think slavery is wrong, but that doesn't make sense to me firstly because this is purported to be Paul and not Jesus, and based on the rest of Timothy it is quite evident that something else is being talked about.

1 Timothy 6

The beginning of this chapter tells slaves to obey their masters "so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered" and then it says that slaves should doubly obey.

Colossians 4

The first verse in this chapter tells slave masters to treat their slaves fairly and justly. This is actually really interesting because it's one of the many verses that compare slave masters too god, and they are apparently just as justified in owning their slaves as god is in owning us.

Ephesians 6

5-9 tells slaves to obey their earthly masters just as they would serve god himself, and ends by telling slave masters to not overly threaten their slaves. (So long as they are obeying presumably. "in the same way.")

Parables in Luke 12 & Matthew 18

Luke 12:42-48 talks about a slave not doing what his master wants, and "The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows.48 But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows." The preceding verse talks specifically about a slave who drinks and beats other slaves being chopped to bits.

Matthew 18:23-35 is a parable about forgiveness, but Jesus points out "Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt." Jesus never points out that the master was wrong in any way. In fact the master is an allusion to god here. Obviously he's not doing wrong.

Philemon

Some will point out the tale of Philemon, but Paul asking for his friend to be freed is hardly to be extrapolated to all slaves.

Conclusion

The Bible as a whole certainly appears to be endorsing slavery. The OT only provides two protections for non-hebrew slaves. One, to not be killed or else a fine would be paid and two, to go free if beaten until they lost and eye or tooth. Contrary to what many people think the NT doesn't actually go against the idea of slavery at all. At least not in any place I could find.

Thanks if you made it this far. Criticism appreciated.

[RolandCuthbert]

Oh my Ladsin, I was not going to comment on this, but then you tried to quote from Matthew 18 the 23rd verse.

That parable in no way justifies slavery. It is about a King and his servants. Jesus explains that the Kingdom of Heaven is like a King who wishes to settle accounts with his servants. We are servants of God. The entire Human race has wronged God. And this account must be settled. So then, if me being a servant of God, go out into the world and claim that somehow someone else has wronged me. Then I hold that person accountable and say I must be repaid, I am not recognizing the forgiveness that God has shown to me.

Repeatedly throughout His teachings Christ has said, if you wish to be forgiven, then you must learn to forgive others.

But I guess not being a Christian, it is something you may not understand. But that theme exists throughout the Gospel.

Matthew 19:7
They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

Matthew 19:8
He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

Matthew 19:9
And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

[ladsin]

Ok, so it looks like we agree on the rest. That's cool.

I pointed out that matthew 18 was a parable. It's a parable about the nature of the master/servant relationship. I couldn't find a single mention by Jesus about slavery. I put up two parables given that could be construed to be discussing the issue. There's a reason that every other section talked about the chapter as a whole and those two only the specific verses in question were mentioned (And together at that).

Apparently it wasn't that clear.

[ladsin]

"Jesus never points out that the master was wrong in any way. In fact the master is an allusion to god here."

This was the point. Jesus didn't say it was wrong.

[RolandCuthbert]

No, I do not agree with you on the "rest". The Bible is a very big complex book. . . or book of books. You are not a Christian and you have no desire to become one. So why would we waste time over your interpretation of it?

But when it comes to the words of Christ, I would rather you not misrepresent what He said.

And again, you have not addressed the issue I brought to you. The point of the parable was about forgiveness. You are trying to claim Christ is making a statement about slavery in a parable about a King and his servants. Unless you know enough about Hebrew to prove that the word "servant" is the same thing as the word "slave", then we don't really have much to talk about.

In English the two words are considered to have different meanings.

Servant;

a person who performs duties for others, especially a person employed in a house on domestic duties or as a personal attendant.

[ladsin]

Wow. No. I didn't say that Jesus was promoting slavery. I very specifically did not say that. I said he didn't point out anything wrong with the master.

You only listen to/ read people who already agree with you?

"Here I'm going to talk about every single usage of the terms slavery or servant that I'm aware of, and if you are aware of some I missed, by all means point it out."

[RolandCuthbert]

It is weird to make a statement then proceed to debate whether or not you made the statement. Christ did not make any judgements about slavery.

[ladsin]

I said, "Matthew 18:23-35 is a parable about FORGIVENESS, but Jesus points out "Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt." Jesus never points out that the master was wrong in any way. In fact the master is an allusion to god here. Obviously he's not doing wrong."

Jesus does not call for slavery, I pointed out that he does not decry the notion of the master/servant relationship.

[ladsin]

*selling of persons.

[ladsin]

Right. No person can say, "Jesus is against slavery!" because he references it twice and does not say it is bad in either place.

[RolandCuthbert]

"Jesus does not call for slavery, I pointed out that he does not decry the notion of the master/servant relationship. "

He does not "decry" the relationship between a boss and his employees either. So what is your point? I will say again for the third time. Jesus never commented on right or wrongs of slavery.

But if you wish to get an insight into what God thinks of slavery, a better passage would be the one where he was asked about what Jews should do with respect to Rome. I will remind you, that Rome was occupying Israel at the time. Using your analogy, the Romans were "masters" to the Jews.

When asked whether or not Jews should pay taxes to the Roman government which had invaded and taken over Israel, He simply said;

"“Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.”

Mark 12:14-17

It is no different than the Jews who thought Jesus was coming to free them from the Romans.

[RolandCuthbert]

And he never said it was good either.

[ladsin]

If someone wanted to say, for example, that Jesus was against... cell-phones, then you'd have to look at his supposed words and see if he said anything about it. If he says nothing then we can't say he thinks anything. The only times Jesus mentions "servants" he does not say it is bad. Thus, anyone who says he is against the master/servant relationship is not validated. If you are aware of some verse I'm missing, perhaps one in which he says something like, "It has long been told to you that it is ok to own one another. This is wrong. You are all equal and no man should have dominion over another" that would certainly be good evidence for the position that Jesus was in fact against it.

[RolandCuthbert]

Well, thank you for the MHO.

So I want to get this straight once and for all.

Jesus did not comment on many issues Lasdin. But keeping in with what Christ said about being a "Christian", what do you think His opinion is on be a Christian?

This is very important to Christians because we are told by Him to be Christ-like. For a person who is not a Christian, you seem to know the Bible very well. But it is puzzling that you wish for Christians to teach you the very Word that you have dedicated your life to not believing.

Well anyway, I hope you answer my question honestly.

"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another." John 13:34

Given this command, would a Christian seeking to live like Christ, keep slaves?

[ladsin]

A.) "What does the Bible say on W?"
B.) "Well it says, X, Y, and Z."
A.) "But I don't like that, it also says D."
B.) "Sure, but that doesn't say anything about X."
A.) "Yeah, but I want it to."

I don't choose MHO's on my questions or takes. I think it more fair to just allow the site to choose although I'm not aware of the process by which it does so.
If you desire to do so you can interpret anything you want out of large works like the Bible. Hence the reason that there are thousands of denomonations of Christianity alone with each differing on inumerable aspects all defended with the same god, person, and/ or book (more or less with some varying books.)

If you take the Bible as the word of god or what he intends for us to know about his character then you simply have to admit that he commanded the trading of persons as property, commanded the taking of persons as slaves (some presumably to be sex slaves), and allowed quite brutal treatment of them. Later it was recommended to -

[ladsin]

not be beaten... too much. Again, I made a reference to every passage regarding the topic at hand and described them. If you don't like what that implies I can't change it.

[RolandCuthbert]

So you can't answer the question honestly. In fact, you cannot even hold a simple honest debate. You claimed you never stated this Jesus commanded slavery.

I know the Word of God. And I know God did not command me to take slaves, sexual or otherwise. I know Jesus has told me to treat and to love those as He loves me. And I know that Satan puts many things in my path to tempt me out of living as Christ would intend. Sometimes I am tempted, I am weak, and I take the bait. But I beg for God to forgive me in the name of His Son, Jesus. . . whom we Christians also refer to as the Word.

He is the Living Word of God. And He has given His Command.

"Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

[ladsin]

Why can't I answer the question honestly? Am I not capable of reading? I thought myself literate, but perhaps this conversation is a miracle

[RolandCuthbert]

Well, you have an agenda. And you often ask for Christians to "logically" explain their illogical "faith".

It seems as if you are searching for something. Because this issue has been beaten to death. You want to read the bible as a factual how-to-manual of how to be a Christian. It isn't a book of scientific facts, not that I am accusing you of being a believer in science mind you. That is another conversation altogether.

But the Bible is a book of "faith". Religion requires you to have "faith". I don't know what happened in your life. But I feel that at one time you were a Christian and something happened. Something bad.

I can only apologize for whatever it was. I am sure you won't share it. But I think you may need to seek some form of help for it, because it could harm you in the future.

You are a young man. . . obviously intelligent. With an incredible story to tell once you mature to the point you can tell it.

cont'd

[RolandCuthbert]

I told you before and I will tell you again, you can easily be one of the most compelling people here at GaG.

But so much of yourself is expended in an effort to squash something that will never be squashed. Simple "faith".

And I feel that maybe this need in you is representative of some deeper yearning. I only wish we could meet in person so I could find out just what that is.

That's why I leave you with these words;

“May the Lord bless you and keep you.
May the Lord make his face to shine upon you,
and be gracious to you.
May the Lord lift up his countenance upon you,
and give you peace."

In Jesus Name,

Amen.

[ladsin]

Don't be silly. Nothing happened. I learned to assess my own beliefs with the same skepticism I apply in every other aspect of life. I agree that faith is illogical. It's wishful thinking. You can use it to believe anything and therefor it can justify nothing.

This is far from the conversation about what "Christianity" or the Bible says about slavery though. Your "Christianity" may find that slavery is wrong. That's fine. I'm just saying you didn't get it from the book. That's all this post was about. If you want to talk about what the BIBLE says about slavery, then you have to address what the Bible says about slavery. Notice the title, "Slavery In The Bible" it's not "Slavery In Your Christianity" or anything like that.

[Sophie_Mitchell]

Ok @ladsin I have addressed this THE BIBLE DOES NOT THINK OF SLAVERY IN THE WAY THAT YOU DO. For one thing the old testament speaks of how servants and slaves were almost identical. In that time slavery wasn't anything severe except when the Israelites or other peoples were captured and forced to build statues and do all sorts of labor.

[Intraluminal]

@Sophie_Mitchell

Slavery wasn't "severe" because virtually all servants WERE slaves. Why would you PAY a servant if you could BUY or capture a slave?

[grimtigress]

always thought that it was relatively hypocritical. went to Sunday school and church often as a kid for my catholic grandmother, but i couldn't ever fully embrace all of what was in it and its values. i mean i get it has good values in it too, but people who are religious often cherry pick what they do and don't agree with in it, like fucking slavery lol and that's their choice. it's an old book worked on by many different people and values have changed throughout time during and after, and that shit should just be acknowledged from a logical standpoint. i thought it was a pretty neat and thorough take though

[ladsin]

Thanks!

[jennifer_bloom]

The references to slavery are allegorical.

[ladsin]

Haha

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

No they aren't. Smh..

[villageidiot]

I agree, but the literalists believe it's all real ie there is a little red man with horns , a tail and a pitchfork. He is CEO of a firey place called hell. My mom used to say it would some day be my
home. I think she was just kidding. At least I hope she was.

[MatthewGoodman]

So what you are saying is because it is in the Bible, it is good? The Ku Klux Klan (KKK) often used Bibles verses and teachings from the Protestant Reverends to support their cause, so does that make them beating, killing, and lynching countless African Americans in the South between 1864 and 1871 right?

To understand the Bible, we must understand the context of which it was written. At the time the Bible was written, slavery wasn't exactly seen as a bad thing, in fact it was rather common. Have you ever wondered why there is so much references to shepherds in the Bible? It's because shepherds were a common thing. The term "Lamb of God" meant a lot more back in the time of Jesus than is does today.

We also need to know that when interpret scripture, we don't take it literally, but figuratively. "You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." (Matthew 5:38-42). Jesus isn't telling us to turn our cheek if someone slaps us, but he is saying how we need to responding to injury without revenge and practice forgiveness.

[ladsin]

I wasn't saying anything about it. I was giving all of the verses that I'm aware of on the subject. I'm an atheist, but frequently in these debates the subject comes up people will try to obfuscate what the text says, so I wrote this to get it all out there. In the future if someone else does it I can just point them here.

[MatthewGoodman]

Ahh... I see.

[markscott]

The Christians lived in a society, where slavery was accepted. it was accepted world wide. The bible was not a boo about slavery. It was a book of redemption and salvation. These stores and beliefs in redemption and salvation would lead to the end of slavery. The bible put restrictions on slavery, the first I know of in history. It is not coincidental, that the first countries to abolish slavery, were Christian countries. That is because Christian principles are not consistent with the continuance of slavery. The bible teaches that Jesus died for every man, and that every person has great worth to God. When British Christians fully realized this, they worked hard for the end of the slave trade, which they did accomplish in the British Empire. This slowly spread, until it reached all countries, and legal slavery was ended. Slavery directly ended, because of Christian principles, working on the hearts of Christian men. God knew this would happen, when people understood his teachings more fully.

[ladsin]

That's quite the assumption, but it doesn't matter. Here I just posted every reference of slavery/ servitude I could find. Do with that information what you will.

[markscott]

ladsin: Not much in the line of assumptions, actually. I posted fact. I have read much in history, since a child, and then in college, and I continue to read a lot of history. I also took a college course, among many, on the Civil War, which gave me a lot of insight into what was happening re. slavery in the old south. That Christians in England, spear headed the end of the slave trade, is simple historical fact. What I said about slavery in the bible, is simply there for any one to read.

[ladsin]

"These stores and beliefs in redemption and salvation would lead to the end of slavery."
This is a big assumption.
It was the Christian south that was advocating for their right to own slaves because of the Bible. God specifically tells the hebrews to take slaves. Either your god is a split brained fellow or he has a very odd way of trying to end slavery by commanding it rather than abolishing it.

[markscott]

Ladsin: The story or redemption leading to the end of slavery, is not an "assumption", as you say. I already said, it's historical fact. Easy to verify. William Wilberforce was a main leader, and evangelical Christian. Yes, the south was Christian, and kept slaves. But the north was also Christian, and many Christians, were strong abolitionists. They were the main drivers of the anti slave movement. Again, simple historical fact. Another historical fact, is that the main drive to end slavery came from Christians, in predominantly Christian countries. It's in these countries, where slavery ended first, and set the example for the world.

[ladsin]

If Christians could use the bible to both support slavery and abolition then the bible and christianity was irrelevant.
It is simply not a fact that the tale of redemption from the Bible lead to abolition. You can say it until you're blue in the face but it's not.
It is a fact that some Christians were instrumental to the abolition of the slave trade, the tale however appears to be irrelevant as I pointed out above.

[markscott]

ladsin: Christianity was hardly irrelevant, when it's principles and it's adherents were the main ones pushing for the end of the slave trade in the British Empire, and then the succeeded in ending it. And Christianity was hardly irrelevant, when its adherents were the main pushers for ending slavery in America. They were the ones that succeeded, when no one else in the world did. And you have the strange notion that it's irrelevant! NASA had some crashed rockets, and some dead astronauts. Do you think they were irrelevant when it came to getting to the moon? It was, if you use the same logic you use with Christians and slavery. And yes, the story of redemption in the bible, was a indeed a major factor in ending slavery. That's because that made all men equal in the eyes of God, for anyone who was not blinded by racism and blinded by supporting slavery. It seem difficult for you to accept the facts, yes, the facts, of what Christians did to end slavery.

[ladsin]

It's principles? I just listed every single mention above and it's evident that ending slavery is not a principle found anywhere in the Bible.
Christians, yes. I couldn't pretend that Christian people were instrumental in the end of the slave trade (mostly) but they were also in large part responsible for it in the first place. The Christians were enslaving, the Christians were pushing for abolition.

Repetition doesn't make truth. If it were true that the Bible was against slavery, you may have a case, but you simply don't. If something can be used to support two mutually exclusive and differing positions then it's not relevant.

[ladsin]

For example.
I can just as easily open a bag of chips with a knife or scissors. Is it relevant which I use?

[markscott]

If you didn't find principles in the bible for ending slavery, then you didn't read the bible very well, or you didn't understand it beyond surface reading.

[ladsin]

This is ridiculous. Above I listed every single reference that I'm aware of which mentions slavery or servitude. Not a single one of them says to end slavery, that slavery is immoral, or that god is against slavery.
You aren't apparently interested in actually discussing things, so I'll just leave you with that.

[markscott]

ladsin: You are a surface reader of the bible, if you don't see how it is against slavery. I once read, that only someone with faith can really understand the bible, and they then see the nuances and deeper meanings. That may be why you don't see it, as it's as clear as day to me and others. Just as it was clear to the abolitionists. No disrespect meant, as a lot of things we don't understand, until we look at it from a particular angle.

[ladsin]

You have to believe it's infallible before you can read it as infallible? That's a catch-22 no?

If you read these in any other book could you possibly try and say that the book doesn't advocate slavery?

[markscott]

This is not a conversation about infallibility. It's about what is in the bible. Just as in many great novels, there is an undercurrent message, that is stronger than what is on the surface. If you don't see that in the novel, then you will miss much of the message. The bible is even more this way. If you read it as just a secular book, much of the message is entirely lost. If you haven't read it with faith, much of the message is lost. And part of what is lost, if the depths are not seen, is what clearly speaks to freedom, and against slavery.

[ladsin]

I think you're quibbling, but I'll try to clarify.

Do I have to have faith in the veracity of the Bible in order to understand this "undercurrent message"?
I don't think that's the case with any novel I'm aware of. I don't have to believe Harry Potter really exists in order to understand the moral of the story. I don't have to believe that Narnia really exists to understand the allegory. Similarly I don't have to believe in Allah in order to understand the Quran's teachings on certain things. I don't have to believe in Shiva and Vishnu to have an adequate understanding of a Veda.
I never stated nor implied that the entire Bible was about slavery if that's what you're faulting me for. I simply wrote about each reference to slavery in the Bible and gave the surrounding context.

[markscott]

You don't seem to be even paying attention to what I am saying. I've said nothing about it being real, though I believe it is. I've only talked about understanding the deeper message in the bible. You don't have to believe it's real to have a deeper message. From your comments, you seem more interested some agenda, rather than pay attention to what I'm actually saying, as you don't seem able to stay on track with my comments, but go off on tangents. That's why it seems you don't really want to discuss the issue, but want to go off on your agenda. So, no sense in more discussion, as I'm not interested in agendas.

[ladsin]

"If you haven't read it with faith, much of the message is lost."
"I once read, that only someone with faith can really understand the bible, and they then see the nuances and deeper meanings."

I have listened to what you're saying, and my response did not go off on any tangent. My response was quite clear in my estimation. Do you extend this rationale to any other book?

[Hyped_up_on_coffee]

Yup , it’s a god awful book. I still don’t know why people endorse it.

[stufflikewhat]

cause you are stupid and read it wrong like ladsin lol

all he does is post up lies I know he does cause I have proved him wrong already and he just runs away and repeats the same lie

nothing new under the sun

[ladsin]

@stufflikewhat Why go anonymous just to comment later so we know who you are XD

[Hyped_up_on_coffee]

oh stop it ! I know how to read and I've ran in to stuff like this in the Bible on my own. If ladsin wants to point out that it’s a horrible book their it’s his right because FREEDOM OF SPEECH we are American !

[AlphaGhost]

I agree with you on this but
Why are you against the Christians?
I am not one for the starters but I do know you used to preach Sunday school type of thing to students. How did you transform from that person in to this?

[ladsin]

I'm not "against christians"

Well... I think the religion is wrong, and I think it CAN be destructive, but mostly this is just educational. I see a lot of misinformation being spread, and I like to correct that when I can.

[Djaay]

Mankind is a slave... either to the devil or to our living God... you have a choice and an eternity with of one or another... easiest put...

[ladsin]

@Djaay well that's one example of how the belief system is destructive

[Djaay]

Destructive ? How so?

[ladsin]

@Djaay making you believe that your fellow man is going to, or deserves to, suffer eternally.
It's masochistic. It makes you look at your child in a way that... is troubling to me.

[Djaay]

God's words in scripture, not mine...

[ladsin]

@Djaay because it's written down that means it's not destructive?

[Djaay]

It means what's written is true...

[ladsin]

@Djaay why not believe the older religions then?

[Djaay]

I don't believe in religion period.

[AlphaGhost]

Okay but people are very conservative and they are judging you for it.
@Djaay there is old testament and new testament with 60 books for which is supposed to be one. Bible is supposed to be one book but we have different version for every country and its 100000% proved now that popes rewrite it suite their needs otherwise there was one book.
Human error in Bible is at its extreme right now and Human are not gods==so don't call it word of GoD at least.
They even decided which would be included in new version and which is going to be left behind. If Jesus done it then it would make some sense but popes I don't buy it.

as for as @ladsin I don't think God have put those versus there cuz he know his creation and better than this.

[ladsin]

How do you choose which verses are real and which aren't?

[AlphaGhost]

I don't chose it and I am openly against the one that chose it for us but you need to accept, its not the work of God anymore cuz people mess with it.

[Djaay]

First of all , in a personal relationship with the Lord , it's the words of course , but also through total faith and prayer you will... if you're already saved through the Lord Jesus... receive the wisdom. through the Holy spirit. That's the true wisdom. The Bible is book of books , although spiritually , the Holy spirit sends wisdom to you from the spirit , not the book.

[Djaay]

***God sends wisdom to you thought the By spirit ***

[AlphaGhost]

@Djaay Dude I never thought I would say it but,
GOD IS NOT IDIOT (forgive me for this GOD) and he knows his creation !
He would never have given us a chance to say things like this man, never cuz I can stand against in front him day of judgment and speak against it and ask for answer.
NO God is thousand times better than this and the universe around us with the perfect harmony and every thing in its perfect state is example of this. Look around you and praise the lord and if you find any fault in his creation, then come and ask me about it. Its holy unlikely God will make mistakes in his holy book cuz He is perfect.

Try to d/f b/w work of man and wisdom of God.

[ladsin]

Oh, I find a lot of fault. Child cancer for an example.

[Djaay]

You and I , are saying the exact same thing... i agree...

[Gray-Wisp]

Perhaps it does but I always found this letter interesting.

Philemon 1:13-19 "I would have liked to keep him with me so that he could take your place in helping me while I am in chains for the gospel. But I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that any favor you do would not seem forced but would be voluntary. Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back forever- no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a fellow man and as a brother in the LORD. So if you consider me a partner, welcome him as you would welcome me. If he has done you any wrong or owes you anything, charge it to me. I, Paul, am writing this with my own hand. I will pay it back-not to mention that you owe me your very self."

[ladsin]

Why does no one like to read what I write? Is it really that difficult to read just a few paragraphs on your holy book?

[Gray-Wisp]

I read the ones in the new testament and your conclusion but I didn't read that sliver there. :D It's not my holy book but it's Paul saying he believes it'd be better if his fellow man were free rather than enslaved.

[ladsin]

He does not. He mentions one particular slave that he happened to become good friends with during his own incarceration. How can you extrapolate that to be about the slave system at all?

[Gray-Wisp]

"no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a fellow man and as a brother in the LORD."

A dear brother is better than a slave and also attempts to justify it by saying he is a fellow man and brother in the Lord. So, while Paul may not have thought slavery is as evil as we do today, he at least prefers people to be free. He wants especially this individual though because he's his friend. I said "Perhaps it does" because even if Paul doesn't like slavery it doesn't condemn it anywhere.

[ladsin]

That's a very strange interpretation that doesn't at all appear to be substantiated within or outside the passage.

[Gray-Wisp]

What do you think about this one? 1 Corinthians 7:21-23 "Were you a bondservant when called? Do not be concerned about it. (But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity.) For he who was called in the Lord as a bondservant is a freedman of the Lord. Likewise he who was free when called is a bondservant of Christ. 23 You were bought with a price; do not become bondservants of men."

[ladsin]

Is there a reason you left out verse 24?

[Gray-Wisp]

"So, brothers, in whatever condition each was called, there let him remain with God."

Hmmm.

[ladsin]

Right, circumcised or not. Enslaved or not. Yet you are god's slave thus you should not sell yourself to another master. Plus, if YOU as a slave of god's can get out of the yolk of another you should.

[Gray-Wisp]

So being owned by people is bad and being owned by God is good is what he's saying?

[ladsin]

Kind of. It appears to me to be saying that it is a conflict of interest for a Christian to be owned by someone else, but it makes no mention of a Christian owning someone else, and as we see elsewhere in the Bible it doesn't have a problem with Christians being owned. It appears that this section just says that they should try.

[Gray-Wisp]

I promise this is the last one. Why does it put enslavers in such a bad light?
1 Timothy 1:9-11 "understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted."

[Gray-Wisp]

And yes I know what you wrote up there but still.

[ladsin]

There's a question about the phrase "men-stealers" did they consider non-christian/hebrew slaves "men" or property? According to the OT property. Is this portion talking specifically about some other sort of lawlessness involved? Perhaps talking about forming a raiding party or something to that effect? We don't know. It's a very strange portion (and as I think we already spoke about before, it's authorship is questionable).

We know that whatever the author is talking about though, because we can look to Timothy 6 and see that there is nothing wrong with a christian being or owning a slave. The author isn't insane I'm sure, so there has to be some reason that these two chapters are in contradiction, my presumption is that it's referencing something in particular that we don't have the context of.

[Gray-Wisp]

Alright, well this was interesting. I still believe Paul low key doesn't like slavery, really doesn't like Christian slavery, and hates his friends being enslaved. But, again that's just him.

Also, there are those who do believe that the Bible cannot be fully understood unless read in Hebrew which kind of makes sense for this reason. There seems to be much confusion through translations. However, I simply don't care enough to learn Hebrew as none of the Christians near me are currently endorsing slavery to my knowledge. I'm sure there is some somewhere that do.

[Gray-Wisp]

are some*

[ladsin]

The new testament was never written in Hebrew... It was written in Greek XD
I just don't see how you're coming to this conclusion. He certainly thinks that slave masters should be a bit nicer.

[Gray-Wisp]

That makes a lot more sense why the Jews don't believe in the new testament then. Now, I didn't know that but that's also a testament as to why I shouldn't sleep so little because I do remember Christians saying means in Greek.

[ladsin]

Yep, plus it wasn't even based on the Hebrew texts, it was based off the Greek Septuagint

[Gray-Wisp]

It cut out my sentence of "Christians saying (religious word) means (stuff) in Greek".

[Philyouup]

It was the bible that Slave owners used to justify enslaving their fellow human being. Certainly did not make them right..

Not sure what the point was.. Was it to show that good book was not all that good? or enslaving people is OK if your Christian ( NT obviously)

I am assuming that you are not advocating the righteousness of slavery, particularity today in what we would be hoping is ( or wishing for) a better informed society. But you are just pointing out these biblical reference to Slavery and the the perfect Jesus as not really being anti slavery.
I'm guessing...

[ladsin]

"I've talked about this subject enough to warrant a Take on it for future use. Here I'm going to talk about every single usage of the terms slavery or servant that I'm aware of, and if you are aware of some I missed, by all means point it out."

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

You have a hard time being 100% honest. And have some sort of sick drive to mislead your audience regarding the Bible.

And for goodness sake I told you quit reading from the NIV or those other water down corrupt versions.

Let them read the 100% real truth.

Understanding Slavery And Why It Wasn't Necessarily Evil In Ancient Days ↗

[ladsin]

You most certainly did not. Address the chapters I mentioned and stop trying to obfuscate by only picking certain ones.

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

I was as honest as possible. Anyone can read Mytake on it to see it.

[ladsin]

I did and responded. You only addressed certain verses. I addressed all of them. Your selection was not only an obfuscation, but now is dishonest.

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

What verses I missed dude?

[ladsin]

Read what I put up and you will see. You didn't mention the NT at all. You completely ignored Deut: 24 and 20.
You gave pretended that verses pertaining to hebrew slaves pertained to non-hebrew slaves. You pretended that a refugee living among the hebrews was the same as one of their own slaves. You pretended that "WHEN YOU TAKE THEM" means "when you buy them".

The rest is just abhorrent rationalizations for why it's ok to own people as property and beat them till the brink of death. "Because my daddy said so." Grotesque.

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

As I said when someone comment about war that I said I forgot to mention the captives of war.

That was a mistake on my part. I didn't purposely leave it out.

And the new testement has nothing to do with slavery that I already didn't address with the old testament, so I didn't see a point.

You just love splitting hairs and arguing over nothing.

[ladsin]

I can't say what your intention was I suppose. I find it incredibly telling that you left it out. I also find it telling that you think it's ok to own people as property just because they're not your own people.

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

I clearly told you and other guy it was a mistake. Go read my comments back again.

[Ridadubb]

The bible absolutely condones slavery.. the bible says you can sell your daughter into slavery exodus 21:7-11 Christians wanna believe so bad that they will make excuses for anything in that book.. cognitive dissonance and indoctrination are hard to overcome

[ladsin]

I agree, I just mentioned all of them.

[Celtero]

Damn... Maybe I should join a bible study after all. Thanks for sharing.

[ladsin]

Haha I would highly recommend it. It's often been said that the best tool an atheist can wield is a good understanding of the Bible. (specifically in regards to Christianity obviously)

[Celtero]

The Bible definitely sounds interesting, I'm just a bit uncomfortable around religious people and feel like they'd try to convert me.

[ladsin]

If you enjoy it I'd highly recommend www.youtube.com/watch
The guys are relatively funny and are doing an "atheist" bible study. I think they do a pretty decent job. They're reading through the bible and read it while giving some commentary. It's funny enough and I think they do it justice. I kind of wish I could do something similar. I'm sure they make good money now XD They also do movie reviews and chick-tract reviews, but I find their read through the best series they've got.

[ladsin]

They're in about half hour segments, so they're easy to digest.

[Celtero]

Thanks.

[ladsin]

Sure, if you decide to watch give me a shoutout to let me know what you think. I'd like to know if they're a good reference.

[ladsin]

Did you ever end up checking it out?

[Celtero]

Yep. I thought it was decent but they didn't get through much in the first episode.

[ladsin]

Oh yeah. At first they go really slow, then they start to draw back a bit. They still go chapter by chapter but Genesis, and parts of exodus are extremely slow because of how much is covered.

[ladsin]

Leviticus and Numbers go really fast.

[Celtero]

Ah okay. I suppose the only aspect of it that I disliked was that they were constantly comparing it to science. As an atheist, I don't really care about the science side of things since I already know religion is dumb. Do they still do that in the rest of the series?

[ladsin]

Eh, they discuss a lot of aspects. They combat the literal reading of the Bible on moral, historical, scientific, etc grounds. They admit that a lot of Christians don't believe in a literal interpretation, but also say that these videos are about a literal reading.

[Celtero]

It was entertaining though, and I thought the part about Lilith was pretty interesting. Perhaps I'll listen to them over spring break a bit more. Thanks for sharing.

[oddwaffle]

Seems consistent with other society.

For the record, Chinese got the same system about 2000+ years ago.

Like you can't force a slave to work without feeding him adequately. The slave can technically sue you to the magistrate. They can also run away unless you care for them.

Later they moved to the indentured servants system. People get sold to richer families and serve them while receiving shelter, food, clothes and possibly a wage.

[ladsin]

Hmm. The way you described it doesn't really seem similar. From the beginning the hebrews had laws against owning their own. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding though.

[oddwaffle]

Well it's similar in a sense that slavery started with the conquered people. When 2 tribes crashed, the loser became slaves.

The Han Chinese were actually few. There were a lot of 'other' races and people back before the unification of China.

As a matter of fact, most other people were actually more like big families. A single family would count into the thousands and ruled over a city that would mostly their relatives and similar. You family name would be your country, place and home.

The concept and laws were placed after the unification. The advancement of the time were that the emperor would consider places they conquered as his own land and the people as his own people. Then he forced the written languages and standardization of measurements on these new people to make them one single "people".

The Romans didn't do that. They sort of made the second class citizen on those conquered or just down right slaves.

[ladsin]

Oh, I agree with much of that. I had a chinese "friend"/ coworker who told me that when the Japanese army invaded they actually got trapped in her family's home and starved to death (the family home was the size of a city similar to the feudal estates).

The issue is that the earliest texts I mentioned, Exodus, already points out that both indentured servants and normal slaves were allowed.

[oddwaffle]

Slavery back then wasn't that much different from being poor except that your boss can sell you to the government.

Most poor families would seek to sell their children to richer families. A young girl could be sold as a handmaid and a boy could be a servant. While being slaves they could own stuff that they would send to their poor families. It was sort of a permanent employment with extremely high restrictions.

Loyal and talented slaves would be promoted. Girls would be trained into high class sex toys and trade to rich merchants and officials to be concubines or private maids. Boys could be trained into house guards, chief butlers and event house generals and allowed to establish their own house if they made enough contribution.

I guess the difference would be the social mobility between what we think and what was then.

Indenture servitude was a job while slave was a class status.

[oddwaffle]

Yeah I mean we understand slaves differently now than before. We would think slaves would be chained and poor and destitute.

It was but it wasn't. Slaves were a class status. It didn't restrict what sort of employment slaves could get.

I think the highest status a slave could get would be a minor or concubine of the emperor.

[ladsin]

Slavery back then wasn't much different from what?

Most of America's slavery laws were based on the Bible, and most slaves in America weren't beaten to the brink of death (why would you break your TV?)

The bible clearly (As I pointed out) described slaves as property that could be passed to your children and beaten until you destroyed their eye or teeth (at which point they were let free) or beaten to death (with a fine).

[oddwaffle]

As I said, consistent with other regions. It was pretty advance form of contractual obligations.

Nowadays we have human capital as a resource rather than property.

[ladsin]

Perhaps I'm confused, maybe you can help me. Slavery (not indentured servitude) can't be equated to a contractual obligation at all, can it?

[oddwaffle]

It does. It's the same thing with divine right and heaven mandate.

It's a social contract of sort, not the modern contract under the law. A king protects his land and people on it and package that as "peace and safety" to sell to the people and receive tax in return. A worker work and get paid in wages. A slave work in exchange for food and shelter.

Of course we would have to look at this from the 2000 years ago view. Life expectancy was pretty low back then. Like 30-40 years old because the lack of food and such. Lives were cheap compare to food and other resources.

Selling yourself to slavery were a fairly decent path for a lot of people if they have problems securing food and shelter. Of course you would have to be whole and healthy or have domestic talents or just look beautiful.

[oddwaffle]

There isn't a restriction for a slave to run away.

The problem is to survive the running away far enough before you can be captured.

If the owner of the slave is weaken or lost control of his property then the slaves would steal whatever is left of their masters and ran. Thus, it was fairly important to get the slaves when they were young and keep them loyal just like a retainer.

The exceptions would be slave soldiers, miners and similar dead-end jobs.

[ladsin]

Taking someone against their will and forcing them into submission is equitable to a contractual obligation? It sounds like you're talking about people selling themselves only. I can't imagine any way in which a person has a contractual obligation to do things against their will just because they were born or were captured.

Perhaps I have a different understanding of obligation though.

[oddwaffle]

Not all slaves were unwilling. It's a class but also depends on the job they were getting. Poor people couldn't afford spaces and richer people tend to take care of their slaves because they need money.

In a family farm, you would worry a lot about the welfare of your workhorse. You might not treat them like human like nowadays but a peasant weren't treated like a human back then either.

[ladsin]

Oh... Did you read the Take? I suppose we were just talking about different things.

[oddwaffle]

You take seems to criticize slavery. My point is that you seem to not understand what slavery back then really mean.

It was a very very different society.

[ladsin]

Wait. What? Did you actually read it or not?

[oddwaffle]

Yeah, you ramble about portion of a book talking about rules of slavery and somehow it's not indenture service. I am not even sure you know how slavery started and how it worked.

[ladsin]

Read your own book man. I can't force you to do it.

[Tamera952]

Wtf? So what are you asking? Of course there’s slavery in the Bible, tons and tons of it... and yes, it appears to condone it. And who the fuck cares anyway? The stupid BUY-BULL has a lot of unsavory things... with a vengeful hateful jealous nurderous ‘god’

[Tamera952]

Whenever someone references the BUY-BULL, it’s such an instant offputting turnoff big eyeroll, like oooooohhhhh shhhhit here we go

[vishna]

I was reading a book and slave masters would read the bible to their slaves and site some of these specific passages to make them accept it. so messed up.

[Waffles731]

Isn't indentured servitude a form of slavery though.

[Waffles731]

The argument could be made that sharecropping was a form of slavery

[ladsin]

Some could. That's why I gave all the verses pertaining to the varying forms. The main issue being that indentured servitude is typically an accepted contract, not forced and they typically aren't treated or regarded as property.

[Frogs_T]

You just have a deep rooted hatred for God. You'd never make anything meaningful that praises the Bible. It's always about the terribleness of the Bible and/or God. You will never make a question/take that shows the glory of God or uplifts the Bible. You always shows things that was before Jesus was the Savior. Anything that shows Godly living that applies to today, you leave out and on purpose. Things like the song of the trumpet and Jesus splitting the eastern sky.

[ladsin]

Here I discussed each passage that deals with slavery and servitude of our fellow man. You should read it. I didn't talk at all about my beliefs on the god proposition.

[Frogs_T]

I don't need to read it because I always know you'll make things that shows negativeness about God or the Bible.

[ladsin]

Sounds awfully closed-minded.

[ladsin]

*close-minded

[Frogs_T]

You're the close-minded one who won't do anything great about God and the Bible, knowing there's great things in it.

[ladsin]

What?
I've read the book one time all the way through and most of it multiple times.

You wouldn't even read a few paragraphs about your supposedly holy book.

[Frogs_T]

Yeah and you don't have the testicular fortitude to make a great and uplifting MyTake about God and/or the Bible. It's always the bad things and never the great things. You're so blinded that you only focus on the bad parts.

[ladsin]

Why would I praise a book that I don't deem praiseworthy?

[Frogs_T]

But you know there's really great things in the book though.

[ladsin]

There are good things, like with any holy book. The Quran has many nice things, as does the Tao Te Ching, etc.

I don't write about them either. I have more knowledge about the Bible, so I discuss it.

[Frogs_T]

So you want to embarrass a book but not discuss the good and the bad? So you play favorites? Real people discuss the good and the bad and don't let their emotions get the better of them.

[ladsin]

I discussed every use of the word slave or servant that I could find in the Bible...

This take was specifically about how the Bible says servants and slaves are to be treated. I did a comprehensive job of that. Again, you'd know that if you read it.

[PervinMervin29]

Goodtake. Yeah slavery has been with us for a long time, hard to find any people that didn't practice slavery or some form of slavery.

[Logorithim]

I'm a non-practicing Christian, but even when I went to Sunday School as a kid, I didn't take passages such as these literally.

[ladsin]

That's fine, I'm just stating what the Bible actually says.

[Anonymous]

Sometimes I wonder if you young guys work too hard. There's actually only one verse you need and you didn't even grab it. It's Levicitus 25:44.

44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.

That's it. The rest is unnecessary (and incorrect) for what it's worth.

[ovoxo_]

Here we go again. You don't get tired do you? 😂
I wonder why you're not a recognized biblical scholar or theologian since you obviously know sooo much.

[ladsin]

I just pointed out every passage referencing slavery. Your refusal to read isn't something I can affect. I actually was preparing for seminary at one point and time and could be a "theologian" now if I hadn't decided to do differently with my life. I taught Sunday school for a year and was training underneath a more senior pastor with my family and I thinking I was called to leadership in the church.

[ovoxo_]

Not that I believe a single one of those claims you said about yourself but I can promise you that you do not know me. I've read (and still read the Bible). You're pushing a false narrative by claiming the Bible "endorses" slavery and you know it. To even say it "appears" to be doing so is pure atheist speculation, since there isn't one verse you can point to that supports slavery. Not ONE. This isn't my "refusal to read", this is another one of your attempts to metaphorically spit on the Bible and that's highly hypocritical on your part tbh.

[ladsin]

Whether or not what I said is true (it is) is completely irrelevant to whether or not you'd read the article. I didn't even make a judgement about it. I literally gave the passages and pointed out what it stated.
You're aware that this doesn't look good for your position right? Your obligation on 1 peter 13:15 would insist that you provide a response about this, but instead of dealing with the matter at all you attack me. Is that Christ-like at all? Ask yourself. If you want to talk I'm more than happy to have a conversation. You have to read what I've written though, I'm not planning to retype the entire thing again.
If you want to continue discourse and do it in a better manner then more power to you. I'm happy to. If not, then that's fine too. I obviously can't force you XD

[John_Doesnt]

Can't we just agree that slavery is always bad?

[ladsin]

Not according to some.

[John_Doesnt]

I guess some people need to see what it's like to be a slave.

[ladsin]

It's the same people that believe they are slaves to a cosmic deity