STOP saying the bible promotes slavery!!

Mar 2012
4,179
#61
It was Christoans that led the anti-slavery movement that eventually brought an end to slavery world wide. Slavery existed and thrived thousands of years before Christianity existed, but it was Christianity that played the primary role to bring it to an end worldwide.

Yes, there were individual Christians who actively supported slaverly, but even more who opposed it too, Men like Wilberforce who spent a lifetime campaigning against it.
Many historians of comparative slavery have tried to find universally applicable definitions of slavery to counter region-centric literature on slavery and historians of globalization are also looking into some global economic or fiscal policy matters that could have caused this (ex: Ancient Slavery and Modern Ideology, Finley 1998; Slavery and Social Death — Orlando Patterson 1982 etc. The decline of slavery seem to have been a world wide phenomenon which happened since the 18th century regardless of Christianity. Slavery for example ended in Mongolia between the mid 18th to mid 19th century and weakened in much of East Asia before there was any contact with British emancipation campaigns.
 
Dec 2014
556
United States
#62
The Bible does include slavery and it doesn't have any prohibitions or criticism of slavery. Most of what it talks about on the topic is more about how slaves should be acquired and treated, not slavery as a topic.

Also, slavery definitely existed in Christian countries; the USA, Spain, and Portugal had slaves in the Americas and justified it through scripture.

Even if the Bible doesn't encourage slavery, it doesn't prohibit it either and it has been used by groups to justify the practice.
https://beginningandend.com/does-the-bible-condone-slavery/
 
Apr 2018
1,328
Mythical land.
#63
The top article is wrong. The guy obviously hasn’t studied his Bible! ONLY Hebrews MALES were released from Slavery after 7 years. Hebrew Females and Gentiles were NEVER to be released … AND their children would be Slaves for their entire lives also.

Under Babylonian Law (The Code of Hammurabi which predates the Israel’s Laws by approximately 500 years) Slaves are NOT inheritable property but are FREE upon their Master’s death. But apparently in Israel the most “godly inspired” nation on earth says Slaves are to be treated as “inheritable property” FOREVER (see Leviticus 25:44-46).

The Bible treats women as PROPERTY of Men and occasionally punishes men by having their wives taken away to be RAPED. In 2 Samuel 12:11-14 God punishes David by giving his wives to his neighbor to be RAPED in broad daylight. Zechariah 14:1-2 claims there will come a day when God will have all the women of Jerusalem RAPED. And Isaiah 13:15-18 shares a prophecy telling us that God is going to make the Babylonian men suffer by having their wives raped.

And for every FEMALE, consider this – If YOU were living in Old Testament times ~

* You would have been illiterate because education was ONLY for Males.

* You would probably be undernourished if you were poor because Males eat first, and females only get the leftovers.

* You would have gotten married at the age of 12, providing of course that your father paid a Dowry.
No Dowry = No Husband.

* If you were poor, you would NEVER have been able to get “Married” but would have had to be a “Concubine” all your life, and your children would have NEVER inherited one cent (because the children of Concubines have NO rights of inheritance).

* You would have to marry whomever your father chose. You would have no choice.

* You father could sell you into life-long Slavery to pay off his debts.

* You would have to be killed if you were not a virgin on your Wedding night.

* You would have to marry your Rapist if he seduced or raped you.

* You would never have any inheritable Land or Property rights as a woman.

* You would continuously be under the control and domination of Men – first your father, then your husband, or brother, or closest male relative.

* You would not be allowed to travel without being under the constant supervision of a Male.
 

Bart Dale

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
6,878
#64
The top article is wrong. The guy obviously hasn’t studied his Bible! ONLY Hebrews MALES were released from Slavery after 7 years. Hebrew Females and Gentiles were NEVER to be released … AND their children would be Slaves for their entire lives also.
You are mistaken. Leviticus 25:44 clearly states that the slaves that the Jews have, both male and female, must come from foreign Nations and not Jews. Clearly Hebrew women are included, despie what you say. That it did not specifically mention Hebrew women because the scenario it mentioned only talked about a Hebrew man selling himself, not a woman, presumably because a woman would not sell herself, since it would be her father, brother or husband responsibility to support her, and a man selling himself is the only way a Hebrew man could become a slave.


As for the aliens being permanent slaves, that was rather typical of most societies.



Under Babylonian Law (The Code of Hammurabi which predates the Israel’s Laws by approximately 500 years) Slaves are NOT inheritable property but are FREE upon their Master’s death. But apparently in Israel the most “godly inspired” nation on earth says Slaves are to be treated as “inheritable property” FOREVER (see Leviticus 25:44-46).
Please quote the code of Hammurabi which states that slaves are automatically freed upon the Master's death. I don't see any such code listed. The closest I find is is that when a man or his wife or children are made slaves to cover a debt, they go free after 3 years.



The Bible treats women as PROPERTY of Men and occasionally punishes men by having their wives taken away to be RAPED. In 2 Samuel 12:11-14 God punishes David by giving his wives to his neighbor to be RAPED in broad daylight.
2 Samuel 12:11-12 nowhere mentions rape, there is no evidence the passage said the sex was forced, and in fact there is no evidence the event actually occurred at all. It is an example of hyperbole.

Women were not treated as property in the Bible. Unlike many contemporary socieities, and even modern India today, where you girls are still being made into temple prostitutes even today, the Bible staunchly rejected such practices.


Nor did the Bible encourage the burning of widows but not inflict the same fate on the male widowers, unlike India.

Zechariah 14:1-2 claims there will come a day when God will have all the women of Jerusalem RAPED. And Isaiah 13:15-18 shares a prophecy telling us that God is going to make the Babylonian men suffer by having their wives raped.
There is such a thing as poetic license, which occurs a lot in the Bible, but the passages merely describe the evils of conquests, it describes death and destruction, and all know that rape was part of the evils of conquest. They are vivid reminders of the evil that befall conquers. The evils Isaiah describes are the same evils that Babylon itself inflicted on others, including it's conquest of Jersualem.

And for every FEMALE, consider this – If YOU were living in Old Testament times ~

* You would have been illiterate because education was ONLY for Males.
Most people in the past were illiterate, the ancient Hebrews were no different. But historically, both Jews and Christians encouraged literacy among women, the literacy of women in Europe and America in the 17th and 18th century was higher than the literacy of women in India in the first part of the 20th century in India and China, for example, or the Middle East. By the later middle.ages, literacy was expected among noble and rich women.

[Quot e=]
* You would probably be undernourished if you were poor because Males eat first, and females only get the leftovers. [/Quote]

Provide evidence to support your statement. I don't know about the data for ancient Israel, but in medieval England, using the sources we have the best data on (elites, offering of kings, queens and dukes and duchesses) in the 14th and 15th century women had 9 years of extra life on the average than men starting of age 20, while in other places like India, the life span of women in the early 20th century was no more than men. In every first world country, female on the average live longer than men by several years, only in backwards countries do men live as long as women. At least in medieval Europe, what you say wasn't true, but it could have been true in places like India.

* You would have gotten married at the age of 12, providing of course that your father paid a Dowry.
No Dowry = No Husband.

* If you were poor, you would NEVER have been able to get “Married” but would have had to be a “Concubine” all your life, and your children would have NEVER inherited one cent (because the children of Concubines have NO rights of inheritance).
Completely untrue. Deuteronomy 21:10-14 gave instructions of how to marry a captured woman taken in battle. The woman was to be given a month to mourn her father and mother, and afterwards, if the man no longer wanted her, he was to give the woman her freedom, he was not allowed to sell her. Since the captive woman obviously had no dowry, what you said about needing a dowry wasn't, demonstrating your a hypocrite, criticizing others what you are guilty of yourself.

Also, Boaz married Ruth who had no dowry or money, and Ruth was the ancestor of King David. Ruth was essentially living on the charity of Boaz when he married her.

* You would have to marry whomever your father chose. You would have no choice.
Please provide the Bible passage to support that. You might be thinking of another culture, like ancient India.


* You father could sell you into life-long Slavery to pay off his debts.
Again, you are wrong. As I explained and cited the Bible verse that only non Hebrews made permanent slaves, Hebrews men and women could not be permanent slaves. Nor does the Bible say a man could sell his children or wife, it only talks about someone selling themselves.

* You would have to be killed if you were not a virgin on your Wedding night.
True, but only if your husband chose to denounce you. He could just divorce you. Also, it is implied that would happen only if the woman lied about being a virgin - if the woman admitted not being a virgin, then there would not be the penalty.

* You would have to marry your Rapist if he seduced or raped you.
Better than not being punished at all. Marriage in the past wasn't about love, and it made sure the woman would be taken care of. Unlike other marriages, the man was not allowed to divorce her.

* You would never have any inheritable Land or Property rights as a woman.
Not true. Numbers 36 shows the daughters of Zelophehad inherited from him, and could chose whom they would marry.

* You would continuously be under the control and domination of Men – first your father, then your husband, or brother, or closest male relative.

* You would not be allowed to travel without being under the constant supervision of a Male.
Not true. A widow or a divorced woman does not seem to be under any man. For example, a women living under her father's roof could make a vow or promise that her father could override and cancel and same for her husband. But a widow or divorced woman could make a vow or promise on her own that none could cancel, implying that the woman was not under the control of a male relative. And the Bible is full of widows that were not under any male relative, such as the widow whose son Elisha brought back to life. And the widow Naomi, mother-in-law of Ruth, wasn't under the control of any man.
 
Jun 2015
1,252
Scotland
#65
Wouldn't it be simpler to just say that in the time that the Bible was written that Slavery was an integral part of society and the norm rather than any exception. With that in mind those writing it would regard it as neither good or evil but just there. It is neither promoted or condemned as you would expect by those living in such a society.
 

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
12,542
#66
Wouldn't it be simpler to just say that in the time that the Bible was written that Slavery was an integral part of society and the norm rather than any exception. With that in mind those writing it would regard it as neither good or evil but just there. It is neither promoted or condemned as you would expect by those living in such a society.
Sounds reasonable except that many claim the Bible to be the source of great morality.... which is incompatible with either supporting or ignoring slavery as I am sure most if not all will agree that slavery is immoral
 
Jun 2015
1,252
Scotland
#67
Sounds reasonable except that many claim the Bible to be the source of great morality.... which is incompatible with either supporting or ignoring slavery as I am sure most if not all will agree that slavery is immoral
Slavery is absolutely immoral in in a modern context but those living in 1st century Roman Empire would have regarded it as a normal part of society. Passing judgement on the people of the era is a complete waste of time and in a historical sense can only hinder our understanding.

As far as I'm concerned the Bible has very little claim to be a source of great morality. My post was an attempt to put the OP in context with some reasonable assumptions.
 
Apr 2018
1,328
Mythical land.
#68
You are mistaken. Leviticus 25:44 clearly states that the slaves that the Jews have, both male and female, must come from foreign Nations and not Jews. Clearly Hebrew women are included, despie what you say. That it did not specifically mention Hebrew women because the scenario it mentioned only talked about a Hebrew man selling himself, not a woman, presumably because a woman would not sell herself, since it would be her father, brother or husband responsibility to support her, and a man selling himself is the only way a Hebrew man could become a slave.
wrong actually.
https://biblehub.com/exodus/21-7.htm
read till 21:11.

As for the aliens being permanent slaves, that was rather typical of most societies.
In most societies but not in societies like india(feels out of place,doesn't it?)
and anyway the point is that bible didn't just mention slavery it also condoned and supported it,this is what the whole thread is all about anyway.





2 Samuel 12:11-12 nowhere mentions rape, there is no evidence the passage said the sex was forced, and in fact there is no evidence the event actually occurred at all. It is an example of hyperbole.
Are reading skills not good there as they are in india??cause i can clearly read this was threat by god,and the threat was that the wife would be raped, whether the thing happened or not is irrelevant,the fact is your god was sending a women to be raped for no fault of her own.
unless you think that girls like to sleep around in front of everybody("broad daylight).
basically because david did something wrong his wife must pay the price.

and obviously no force was involved,heck fairy music was playing in the background,happy?

Women were not treated as property in the Bible. Unlike many contemporary socieities, and even modern India today, where you girls are still being made into temple prostitutes even today, the Bible staunchly rejected such practices.
and why compare bible to entire india??a country with such vivid diversity in practices??do you even know what false equivalence is??or more importantly, do you even care?


There is such a thing as poetic license, which occurs a lot in the Bible, but the passages merely describe the evils of conquests, it describes death and destruction, and all know that rape was part of the evils of conquest. They are vivid reminders of the evil that befall conquers. The evils Isaiah describes are the same evils that Babylon itself inflicted on others, including it's conquest of Jersualem.
This a poor excuse,there is no amount of poetic license that could be used to justify such writing,and anyway how do you know it was not literal??

and it was god's conquest,obviously it was evil conquest as well.

A day of the Lord is coming, Jerusalem, when your possessions will be plundered and divided up within your very walls.

2 I will gather all the nations to Jerusalem to fight against it; the city will be captured, the houses ransacked, and the women raped. Half of the city will go into exile, but the rest of the people will not be taken from the city.


god does justify use of rape in war,that says a lot about god and people who defend such god.

Most people in the past were illiterate, the ancient Hebrews were no different. But historically, both Jews and Christians encouraged literacy among women, the literacy of women in Europe and America in the 17th and 18th century was higher than the literacy of women in India in the first part of the 20th century in India and China, for example, or the Middle East. By the later middle.ages, literacy was expected among noble and rich women
and you know why??because of colonization,surprising,isn't it??go and read a history book,i don't want to teach you abc of indian history,yet again.


Completely untrue. Deuteronomy 21:10-14 gave instructions of how to marry a captured woman taken in battle. The woman was to be given a month to mourn her father and mother, and afterwards, if the man no longer wanted her, he was to give the woman her freedom, he was not allowed to sell her. Since the captive woman obviously had no dowry, what you said about needing a dowry wasn't, demonstrating your a hypocrite, criticizing others what you are guilty of yourself.
and how does that make "me" a hypocrite??in india we follow dictionary so go by that to demonstrate your point.
and i admit i was wrong here.



Again, you are wrong. As I explained and cited the Bible verse that only non Hebrews made permanent slaves, Hebrews men and women could not be permanent slaves. Nor does the Bible say a man could sell his children or wife, it only talks about someone selling themselves.
already replied

True, but only if your husband chose to denounce you. He could just divorce you. Also, it is implied that would happen only if the woman lied about being a virgin - if the woman admitted not being a virgin, then there would not be the penalty.
and that somehow is okay??god,religion does make people delusional.

Better than not being punished at all. Marriage in the past wasn't about love, and it made sure the woman would be taken care of. Unlike other marriages, the man was not allowed to divorce her.
yes perfect,isn't it??and how does it punish the man more than it punishes the women??




Not true. A widow or a divorced woman does not seem to be under any man. For example, a women living under her father's roof could make a vow or promise that her father could override and cancel and same for her husband. But a widow or divorced woman could make a vow or promise on her own that none could cancel, implying that the woman was not under the control of a male relative. And the Bible is full of widows that were not under any male relative, such as the widow whose son Elisha brought back to life. And the widow Naomi, mother-in-law of Ruth, wasn't under the control of any man.
okay.
 

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
12,542
#69
Slavery is absolutely immoral in in a modern context but those living in 1st century Roman Empire would have regarded it as a normal part of society. Passing judgement on the people of the era is a complete waste of time and in a historical sense can only hinder our understanding.

As far as I'm concerned the Bible has very little claim to be a source of great morality. My post was an attempt to put the OP in context with some reasonable assumptions.
If you regard the Bible as merely a compilation of stories written by bronze age people from the middle east, then your position is quite reasonable (similary other points such as the Bible only mentionning bread and not rice as a staple food, not mentionning for example the Americas etc.... are easily explained away by the limited knowledge these folks had at the time)

However for those who claim that it is "inspired" by God (or in some cases dictated by God) and is the source of ultimate truth, wisdom and morality your argument is in contradiction with their position.
 

Bart Dale

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
6,878
#70
You are not taking the entire context of the passage. When reading the full passage, and not just the few line you cited, it is clear the woman being sold was as if for a wife - if the master does not have sex with the woman, she may be ransomed back, and if she is given to the son, it is specifically stated she should be treated as.daughter. She is to go auto.atically free if the Master does not provide her with the first of meat, clothes, and conjugal rights. The Master is also not allowed to resell her. Naturally, if she is being treated as a wife, she couldn't be lowed to fee like a male slave.






Are reading skills not good there as they are in india??cause i can clearly read this was threat by god,and the threat was that the wife would be raped, whether the thing happened or not is irrelevant,the fact is your god was sending a women to be raped for no fault of her own.
The literacy rate for.woman traditionally lagged in India and many other societies from Christin and Jewish societies when we had good statical in formation. Women in colonial America had higher rates of literacy than women in early 20th centuries later, and European has a hither literacy rate even today, even if the gap has narrowed.

As for the dangers visited by God, that is part of the greater problem of evil. Note, women can be guilty just as men are in performing or promoting evil acts. Even if they don't go out conquering themselves, they might encourage their menfolk to commit the atrocitiez.


unless you think that girls like to sleep around in front of everybody("broad daylight).
basically because david did something wrong his wife must pay the price.
We don't know the circumstances. Maybe the women deliberately did it to show contemporary to their husbands, did it deliberately to humiliate theie husband's for whom they had no respect for all we know

and why compare bible to entire india??a country with such vivid diversity in practices??do you even know what false equivalence is??or more importantly, do you even care?
You have to judge something by the standards of the time and setting. The laws laid down for the ancient Hebrews were not always applicable for all time, but often applicable for the people in their given level of social development and setting, which is why they are are not practiced any more. This was clearly understood. Obviously, what happens in 20th century and 21th century is off far greater relevance and importance of what happened 3000 years ago. The Bible often records the flaws and failings of people, even highly regarded people in the Bible, and many laws given because of the limited understanding and capacity of the people at that time. The Bible does make that clear later that some laws were given because of the limited understanding of the people

It is one thing to tolerate something 3000 years ago, quite another to tolerate such practices today. Even if the majority of Indians don't practice them if allows them they are somewhat responsible.




A day of the Lord is coming, Jerusalem, when your possessions will be plundered and divided up within your very walls.

2 I will gather all the nations to Jerusalem to fight against it; the city will be captured, the houses ransacked, and the women raped. Half of the city will go into exile, but the rest of the people will not be taken from the city.
What described did happen, that is reality of when the Babylonians captured Jerusalem. Sometimes dire results happen as a consequence of own actions. If someone predicts you will die young and poor and lying gutter if you continue to abuse cocaine, and it happens, that is not the fault of the person who predicted it. The Jews were repeatedly warned of the dire consequences their actions would have if they continued them, but they did not stop.


and you know why??because of colonization,surprising,isn't it??go and read a history book,i don't want to teach you abc of indian history,yet again.
Colonization is not responsible for India rejecting the printing press for centuries, not the lack of literacy that resulted from that rejection. Nor was colonialism responsible for th practice of sati, and the Indians continued practice that other civilized people had long before abandoned. Nor for the rather backwards of temple prostitution, which other parts of the world had abandoned thousands of years earlier. Not all.of the problems of India were caused by colonialism. The events of recent history are off far more relevance than the ancient past.



and that somehow is okay??god,religion does make peopl


I would like to point out out that this thread was about the issue of slavery, and.most of what you posted was not about slavery, but you just used to bash the beliefs of others.
 

Similar History Discussions