Does the Bible Really Support Slavery?

Author: Jarrett_Ludolph

Posts

Total: 80
#61
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@fauxlaw
Yes. In fact, it was in Britain first, then exported to America. What most people don't know, is that slavery of this type, (owning the slave outright as personal property), is a relatively new thing as far as human history is concerned. When religion and race were placed into the mix is when we got the really onious slavery of the American South.

I think the enemies of Christ pushed this hard in America so as to be able to castigate the bible later. It is almost impossible to get an American not to see Kunta Kenté whenever the word "slavery" is mentioned from any time period or geographic location. In my discussions with American atheists, the terms "indentured servitude" make no sense, and they are incapable of understanding that "slavery" can mean different things. It's almost as if they need the bible to have condoned slavery!
#62
Jasmine
Jasmine's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 126
0
3
6
Jasmine's avatar
Jasmine
0
3
6
-->
@Jarrett_Ludolph
Yeah, read this one quote that was like

You can own slaves except if they're from your home country Israel.  
#63
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,321
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
I'm going to hazard a guess that the slaves that were literally BORN INTO SLAVERY were "not voluntary".
You would be wrong. The kind of slavery the Bible is talking about is indentured servitude where a person worked off a debt.
"INDENTURED SERVITUDE" WAS FOR "FELLOW ISRAELITES".

LIFELONG SLAVERY AND OWNERSHIP OF YOUR SLAVES CHILDREN FOR LIFE WAS FOR THE "FOREIGN BORN".
#64
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,321
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@fauxlaw
However, there were also slaves who were so their entire lives, so it was both indentured servitude and slavery in a traditional sense.  
"Take your slaves from the nations around you."

"You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly." [LINK]
#65
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,321
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
My point was not that slavery did not exist, but that the bible does not condone or excuse it.
"Take your slaves from the nations around you."

"You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly." [LINK]

#66
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,321
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
The bible explicitly forbids ownership of ANY human (slavery) and sets the penalty for slavery as death.
Citation please.
#67
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,122
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

Many Scriptures and books of the Bible (e.g. Philemon) were used as pro-slavery propaganda
in justifying the enslavement of African people.
#68
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm going to hazard a guess that the slaves that were literally BORN INTO SLAVERY were "not voluntary".
You would be wrong. The kind of slavery the Bible is talking about is indentured servitude where a person worked off a debt.

"INDENTURED SERVITUDE" WAS FOR "FELLOW ISRAELITES".
Untrue. Indentured servitude was for everyone. That is why every 7 years Israel had a jubelee year.

LIFELONG SLAVERY AND OWNERSHIP OF YOUR SLAVES CHILDREN FOR LIFE WAS FOR THE "FOREIGN BORN".
I keep telling you, the word "slave" in the Bible doesn't mean what you assume it does. There were those who chose to remaining indentured servitude, those who had debts that could not be repaid in a lifetime, and those who had committed crimes while in indentured servitude. Just requiring verses saying "slaves" shows nothing if the word slave does not mean what you are trying to imply.

The bible explicitly forbids ownership of ANY human (slavery) and sets the penalty for slavery as death.

Citation please.
Why? Would you believe the Bible?

Exodus 21:16 - “Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession.

1 Corinthians 7:21
21 Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so.

1 Timothy 1:10
10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine

Deuteronomy 23:15-16
15 If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master. 16 Let them live among you wherever they like and in whatever town they choose. Do not oppress them.

Deuteronomy 24:7
7 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.
#69
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@zedvictor4
@FLRW
Many Scriptures and books of the Bible (e.g. Philemon) were used as pro-slavery propaganda
in justifying the enslavement of African people.
So was the Constitution. So what? If a knife is used to murder, is the knife evil? 

Exodus 21:26-27
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.

Does this sound like old south slavery? Why would a master need to compensate for what he owned if the slave was his property? The debt was his property, not the person. People sold themselves into debt.

I think that it's fair to suggest that the words "Slavery" and "Voluntary" are not synonymous.
Exactly! This is why kidnapping is prohibited, because slaves are never voluntary, they must be taken by force. 
Exodus 21:16 - “Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession.

No mention of Israelites only, it says anyone who kidnaps "someone".

Hebrews could not own slaves in the old souths because God said, 

Eze 18:4 - Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.
#70
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,321
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
Deuteronomy 24:7
7 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.

fellow Israelite

fellow Israelite

fellow Israelite

fellow Israelite

fellow Israelite
#71
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,321
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
Exodus 21:26-27
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.
You can own people and their children and bequeath them on as part of your children's inheritance.

JUST DON'T POKE THEIR EYES OUT.
#72
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,321
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
Hebrews could not own slaves in the old souths because God said, 
"Take your slaves from the nations around you."

"You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly." [LINK]
#73
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL

Deuteronomy 24:7
7 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.

fellow Israelite
fellow Israelite
fellow Israelite
fellow Israelite
fellow Israelite
You again forgot Exodus 21:16 - “Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession.

This is a common logical error. Yes, Deuteronomy 24:7 says "fellow Israelite" . It DOES NOT say kidnapping a non-Israelite is permissable, but that is how you try to slant the verse.

You can own people and their children and bequeath them on as part of your children's inheritance.
JUST DON'T POKE THEIR EYES OUT.
"Owning people" is your addition to the verse. It is the debt that is owned, not the person. In the old South, a master owed a slave nothing if he maimed him. You are simply assuming slaves were owned, though all the contexts say they were not. You have dodged explaining the differences between slavery in Hebrew times and slavery in the old south. You have failed to explain why a master would recompense a slave if the slave was bodily his property.

Like all atheists with an agenda, you want us to look at the word "slave" and think no further, blocking all context. That tactic has never worked, and it won't work now. The only people you will convince are the ones who already agree with you.

Hebrews could not own slaves as in the old souths because God said, 

Eze 18:4 - Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

God put the penality of slavery as death.
God called slave trading evil.
God said if a slave should seek refuge with you, do not return him.
Hebrew slavery was voluntary or else it was prohibited.
God said He owned all souls. 

I have provided the citation you asked for. You ignored it and reposted your unsupported argument. Was that honest? If your argument is correct, why the dishonesty? Why the dodging of questions? Why are you ignoring citations you asked for?

When you areno longer ashamed to address the fact that "slave" in the bible doesn't mean what you are insinuating, I'll be here.
#74
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,321
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
You again forgot Exodus 21:16 - “Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession.
You again forgot Leviticus 25:44 - 46 - "44‘As for your male and female slaves whom you may have—you may acquire [NOT KIDNAP] male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. 45‘Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition [NOT KIDNAP], and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession. 46‘You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another."

permanent slaves
permanent slaves
permanent slaves
permanent slaves
#75
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,321
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
unsupported argument.
Leviticus 25:44 - 46
#76
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
Vain repetition will not help you.

The word slave as used in the bible doesn't mean what you are trying to imply. Like all atheists with an agenda, you want us to look at the word "slave" and think no further, blocking all context.

You are now reduced to repeating words like a parrot because you have no rebut for my argument. You are simply assuming slaves were owned, though all the contexts say they were not. You have dodged explaining the differences between slavery in Hebrew times and slavery in the old south. You have failed to explain why a master would recompense a slave if the slave was bodily his property.

I have provided the citation you asked for. You ignored it and reposted your unsupported argument. Was that honest? If your argument is correct, why the dishonesty? Why the dodging of questions? Why are you ignoring citations you asked for?

Bibles are not hidden or private. Posting the verses is not an argument, and people seeing them will not make them automatically believe your interpretation.

But if all your argument is is like that of a  bigot yelling "Homo! Homo!" Go ahead and post the word slave again. This time maybe use all caps. That might help people forget the the word "slave" used in the Bible does not mean what you want it to. 

37 days later

#77
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Jarrett_Ludolph
Does the Bible really support slavery?
The answer would seem to be that parts of the bible do support or at least condones slavery and even provides a system under which slavery "should" be practiced and parts of the bible arguably are against slavery. It seems odd from a book that can be considered a perfect divinely inspired guide to morality but it makes a lot of sense if it was written at various times by various people for various reasons and they were not all morally perfect people. 

Fun fact did you know that the bible was quoted by both northern abolitionists and southern slave owners in the years leading up to the civil war both secure in the knowledge that (parts of) the bible supported their view? 

14 days later

#78
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,321
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
The word slave as used in the bible doesn't mean what you are trying to imply.
I'M PRETTY CERTAIN MODERN JEWISH SCHOLARS KNOW WHAT THE HEBREW WORDS MEAN.
#79
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,321
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
“I don’t know if you heard, but one who frees his slaves violates a positive precept, i.e. you shall make them serve you forever.” He continues saying that the manumission of slaves does not apply at the present moment, therefore, he desists. The first brother replies and tells him not to violate the positive precept of the Torah." [**]
#80
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,321
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
A master had one year to persuade a Canaanite servant to undergo circumcision and ritual immersion in a mikvah in order to accept this role. If the servant didn’t consent, he must be sold. If he did consent, he became a permanent member of the master’s household. Unlike a Hebrew servant, a Canaanite servant doesn’t go free after six years or at the Jubilee; he potentially serves for the rest of his life.

Similarly, since Canaanite servants were only obligated in the mitzvos in which women are obligated, if a Canaanite servant’s master caused him to perform a mitzvah that is only performed by men, such as putting on tefillin or calling him for an aliyah, then that servant is considered freed. (“A tallis! Master has given Dobby a tallis! Dobby is free!”) [**]
I guess freeing a female foreign slave is somewhat more complicated.