Talk:Slavery in the Bible/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 14 March 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Topic

We need to refute claims that Atheists aren’t moral or are morally defective. Here’s an example. Atheism. Note! Those Christians don’t even feel a need to provide evidence that we are corrupt and have done abominable works. They just quote the Bible and take care to translate it in a way they think is accurate. I’ll come back to this when I have more time. I feel thoroughly insulted. I’ve started refuting that in the article Christian morality which is linked to the Main Page. The team here can do much better than I can single handed. Proxima Centauri 07:14, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

I like the reference at the bottom of Christianity.wikia page,

The atheist viewpoint and 50 reasons why they believe God cannot exist (Note that this site selectively quotes. It might be useful to be aware of the context of the bible verses it uses to justify its views.)

And anti-atheists never selectively quote? LOL. Genghis^unbelieving 07:30, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

And where, if I might ask, does this "intuitive sense of right and wrong" come from? And does the current standards of morality change becaue this sense changes, or does the sense change because the standards change, or are they both linked to some entirely different third factor? And if morals change, how can this be an intuitive sense at all? --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 08:30, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

That is an interesting question which I have never had a good answer to. It seems pretty obvious that it does not come from religion - because religious ideas of right and wrong (like slavery) also change with time. It is also interesting that religious ideas of right and wrong change when society's change - sometimes some religions are ahead of the social curve and sometimes they are behind. But my impression is that, as a society, we are becoming more moral. We (well, most of us) no longer think that dog fighting is good fun, that slavery is good, that capital/corporal punishment is a good idea, etc. Why do we change in this way?--Bob^{bing up} 09:30, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

In past centuries most people lived in Third World conditions everywhere. This could not be prevented. People, rich and poor alike suffered misery from conditions like toothache which dentists can now treat. Painkillers were far less effective than they are today. Rich and poor alike people frequently died young from conditions that are treatable today. With so many unpreventable bad things going on people had less incentive to improve moral standards. That's one explanation.

Another explanation is that we exaggerate how far morals have improved. We're biased in favour of our own society as everyone is. We think dog fighting and bull fighting are wrong. We tolerate Factory farming. I think confining an animal in a factory farm for its whole life is far worse than torturing a dog or a bull for a few hours during a fight. Both are wrong. Proxima Centauri 09:54, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

My 2d worth - there is no 'intuitive sense of right and wrong' - there's a relativistic set of rules which allow us to live together. I'm always wary of absolute values - history has shown how values change and absolute values resist that change. Silver Sloth 10:07, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

There are a lot of rational arguments for morality based on mutual self-interest. Not killing, stealing or raping; respecting our parents, telling the truth etc. The Big Ten covers the stuff that lets a civil society function. Only the having no other gods, not making graven images, not taking name in vain etc. are inherently of religious origin and can be seen as ways of keeping people in the faith. Economic arguments can explain a lot of morality and as our economic circumstances have changed so have our morals. It's not just that we are biased towards our own society, psychological experiments show that we tend to be biased in favour of people who are similar to us, even if it is only sharing a commonality of name. Genghis^unbelieving 10:29, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

The big ten!! about half of them are rubbish! And they don't mention rape. How would economic arguments, or arguments about helping people who are similar to us, end up eliminating slavery?--Bob^{bing up} 11:22, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

It's a change in perception as to what 'similar to us' means. As long as slaves are 'others' then a 'morality' can be constructed where slavery is a good thing(tm) because they're better off being our slaves than in their natural, debased habitat. I know people who genuinely believe that 'blacks' are 'an inferior race' and therefore not as 'worthy'. As we progress and the world shrinks we are seeing more and more that all the world are brothers and sisters worthy of equal respect - and therefore unworthy of being slaves. Silver Sloth 11:34, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

If slaves do not perform as well or run away then you are left without a workforce. Ultimately the slave owners want to make a profit, if conditions change and the profit can be in another way then there is no reason to perpetuate the slavery. In an industrial economy slaves are not big consumers, emancipating those slaves produces a larger market into which you can sell your product. Economies of scale can produce the same profit. There is also the self-interest that slavery (or indeed any large disparity) engenders hatred of the oppressor, that means having to live in the state of fear of an uprising and retribution which uses up resources. Living in a free and open society is less stressful. Rape is not explicitly banned by the ten commandments and it was probably more common in older times. As women have become more involved in work outside the home and been enfranchised then they have become more vocal about rape and are able to exert political and economic force to changes laws and enforce justice. Genghis^unbelieving 12:05, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

All that you say about slavery is true. But it looks like arguing after the fact. If getting rid of slavery is such a good idea - why did the US need to fight a war to get rid of it? If slavery is so counter-productive why did it exist for most of human society? Why does it still exist?--Bob^{bing up} 12:11, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

Slavery in the North was waning for the reasons given above. In the South it was still highly profitable, since the South was an agricultural, not an industrial economy. Slavery was even waning there until the invention of the cotton gin. Just the Cliff's notes version. ħuman 18:15, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

Whether or not slavery is profitable is not an absolute. It is dependent on a range of economic factors, particularly the relationship between the cost of land and the cost of labour. Generally speaking, the higher the cost of labour and the lower the cost of land, the more profitable slavery will be. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 14:41, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

The focus of slavery in the West is often on African slavery but prior to that European feudalism was a form of slavery. As the number of free-men increased and empires expanded it was necessary to acquire slaves from less technologically developed nations. Progress was much slower in earlier times so change took a long time. But with the industrial revolution labour was diverted from the land to the factory. While factory conditions could be bad they do require a more compliant workforce as factories can be more easily sabotaged than a field. In the US, the north became industrialised while the south relied more on agriculture, there was a need for labour to work the large cotton and sugar plantations so emancipation of the slaves would have an negative economic impact on the plantation owners whic they obviously didn't appreciate. Owing to the hot summers the south did not really become a popular place to live until the invention of air-conditioning. We see 3rd world countries where people work in what we think are appalling conditions. However, for many of them it is better than what they had when working the land. As the wealth and skills base builds up those people will be able to demand better conditions and pay. The West may think they take a moral stand on this but poorer people in the west are in no position to take moral stands, they want cheap food and clothing. It seems that the bigger the disparity between rich and poor then the less likely are ethical considerations to be important. Thats why the US has failed to sign up for so many UN treaties (rights of women, children, culture, Kyoto etc.). More egalitarian (but comfortable) European countries are more concerned about 3rd world conditions than the US where there is a mind-boggling difference between the ultra-rich and the poor working for $6 an hour. Genghis^unbelieving 15:19, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

Feudalism, to the extent that such a concept even exists, is not slavery. Serfs, while not legally free and dependent on a lord, had control of the means of production and still had certain legal rights. A slave has neither. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 17:16, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

Marriage and childbirth in Hebrew slavery

So it says if the master provides a male Hebrew slave with a "wife" (I would hesitate to use this word, assuming the union is not necessarily voluntary), she and any offspring will be slaves for life (presumably the female was a slave to begin with). If the male slave was already married, his wife will go free with him after six years - but nothing is said about what happens to children born during their six-year servitude. Why? Since it seems young slave couples procreating during any six-year period would not have been uncommon, this seems very odd - perhaps their children were used as leverage to keep the slaves permanently? Muad (talk) 02:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It says "the woman and her children shall belong to her master" - so I would assume that they are born slaves.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 08:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Four allegedly important passage groups

There are four important passage groups which this analysis has skipped over: 1) Ex. 21:16 "He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death." And a similar verse in Dt. 24:7 "If a man is caught kidnapping one of his brother Israelites and treats him as a slave or sells him, the kidnapper must die. You must purge the evil from among you." Since virtually all New World slavery was predicated on abduction (or abduction of one’s ancestors), slave traders in 1850’s Mississippi should have been swinging on a rope. These two verses almost single-handedly stamp “paid” to the idea that the Bible supports chattel slavery.

2) Lev. 25:49. “An uncle or a cousin or any blood relative in his clan may redeem him. Or if he prospers, he may redeem himself.”  In ancient Israel, a Hebrew “slave” or his relative (called a kinsman redeemer) could buy him out of slavery to a foreigner at any time (this was about debt payoff).

3) Lev. 25.39. “If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you..."  Deut. 15.12. “If a fellow Hebrew, a man or a woman, sells himself to you and serves you six years, in the seventh year you must let him go free.” The majority of OT “slavery” was entered into voluntarily in response to debt. Note the phrase, “…sells himself”.

4) Dt. 23:15. "If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand him over to his master. 16 Let him live among you wherever he likes and in whatever town he chooses. Do not oppress him."  “Slaves” could walk out anytime the situation became intolerable, and they were not to be sent back even though they would lose their current social support structure and be in debt-default. This was a VOLUNTARY INSTITUTION –at least as voluntary as debt and poverty can be.ScoobyRuvHound (talk) 06:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

1. Since virtually all New World slavery was predicated on abduction (or abduction of one’s ancestors), slave traders in 1850’s Mississippi should have been swinging on a rope. These two verses almost single-handedly stamp “paid” to the idea that the Bible supports chattel slavery. Bullocks. You aren't allowed to kidnap your fellow citizens ("Israelites"), but you can purchase foreigners under Biblical law. (Lev. 25:44: "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.")
2. You conveniently omit Lev. 25:47, which allows such redemption only for those owned by foreigners: ""'If a foreigner residing among you becomes rich and any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to the foreigner or to a member of the foreigner's clan, they retain the right of redemption after they have sold themselves. One of their relatives may redeem them:..."
3. Again bullshit: the majority of OT slaves came from spoils of war. Yes, the Israelites had a soft spot for their fellow kinsmen, but this didn't stretch to foreigners...
4. This verse applies to slaves who fled from foreign lands into Israel (slaves of the gentiles)

Frankly, you just try to support wishful thinking by quote-mining. --larron (talk) 06:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

ScoobyRuvHound's arguments are indeed absurd. The racially-defined non-Hebrew slaves taken by Israel in battle or purchased by them were pretty obviously not there voluntarily and were clearly not able to just walk out if they felt like it.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 08:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

1. Hogwash. You weren't allowed to kidnap anybody. The prohibition in Ex. 21:16 was universal. 2. No, nothing was left out. Now re-read the last 5 words. However foreign slaves were obtained, they could not be kidnapped and held, and they were to be treated the same as Hebrews in Lev 19:34 and Dt. 10:19. 3. You know the demographic breakdown of the sources of servant/slaves under the “Saul Administration”? Really? Source please. Lev 25:44 does not apply to war. Dt. 20 covered warfare, but this was only in response to a defensive war, and such “slaves” taken would actually be vassals and serfs. Dt. 20 also happens to be a hypothetical which was never realized. 4. It says slaves of the gentiles where?

Dt. 15:16-17 It shall come about if he says to you, ‘I will not go out from you,’ because he loves you and your household, since he fares well with you; 17 then you shall take an awl and pierce it through his ear into the door, and he shall be your servant forever. Also you shall do likewise to your maidservant. Sound like the conditions on the movie Roots?ScoobyRuvHound (talk) 19:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

"(Exodus 21:20-21 ESV) When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money."

So severely beating slaves was OK as long as they did not immediately die. So, yes, sounds pretty roots-like to me.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 19:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

If the beating caused death, the “master” was held accountable under the life-for-life clause. See Ex. 21:20. If it caused any permanent damage, the servant was immediately released. Ex 21:26-27 The Hebrew word for “property” in Ex. 21:21 is ksph (silver) which is not the normal word for property; see the parallel in the preceding verses of two men fighting with no one dying, but the aggressor is forced to 'retributively' pay (out of his own money--"silver", ksph) for the victim's lost economic time and medical expenses. This was all actually much more humane than what could be done to freemen of the same period and represents a dramatic improvement over what the rest of the ancient world did. Beyond that, Deuteronomy (which largely repeats Exodus/Leviticus) is an ancient suzerainty treaty entered into exclusively between God and ancient Israel...IOW, the Mosaic Law is a contract. Christians today, however, live under a new contract called grace. Since neither Christians nor the modern west signed on to this Mosaic Law contract, the nuts-and-bolts details of Exodus/Leviticus don't apply to either of us.ScoobyRuvHound (talk) 21:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Right, except where do you think the slaves who where bought came from ? They certainly where not consenting victims. Matter of fact a number of stories in the Old Testement speak of the slaves the Hebrew aquired through the invasion and conquest of Heathen lands, and those peope where certainly not under the debt slavery laws of the Old Testement since they where not Jews; as the law differentiated debt slavery and chattel slavery only by the relgion of those slaves (the Jews and mon Jews respectively). Casecr (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Removing Propaganda

I will go on to remove propaganda from the article like:

It seems quite clear that a daughter sold to be a maidservant was promised to a future marriage either with her master or his son. If such thing was to occur, her status would them move from maidservant to wife or daughter. Otherwise, she would be free at the end of the six years.

That's not "quite clear": the clarification applies to those daughters who were sold to become wives of their masters - or their masters' sons, but their is no specification for girls who didn't get such a promise.

Indeed, on should be "quite" careful thinking that some verses have a "clear" or "obvious" meaning: brilliant theologians have used such verses to argue for slavery over centuries!

--larron (talk) 14:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

It's evident when you read the text!!

"And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money."

How would he deal deceitfully with her if she had nothing to expect from him?! --MrXrM (talk) 18:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

That's only evident to you. A Christian minister in Charleston in 1820 may have argued that this is applicable only to young ladies sold with the purpose to marry the master or his son: you may read the line as if "who hath betrothed her to himself" is a general description of all maidservants, it can also be seen as a restriction to those maidservants who were betrothed, so that the following sentences aren't applicable to those not betrothed.

--larron (talk) 19:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I should have put in bold also and if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money. That is :

1° She was promised to marry him -> He must marry her

2° She was promised to his son -> The son must marry her and she must be considered as a daughter

3° The son is given a second wife -> She must keep her rank

Otherwise the 6 years (max) fixed-term contract concluded between the father and the master for her to work as a maidservant come to and end.

If your point is that she is not necessarily promised to get married, I agree that it may not be that obvious after all. ^{— Unsigned, by: MrXrM / talk / contribs}

That is exactly my point. --larron (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The other thing worth remembering when **anyone** says "it's so evident" "it seems clear", etc. is that you are working from one particular translation that may or may not be shared by your audience, much less the millions or billions of people who have read any given passage. And, that translation may have little to nothing to do with the an original language snip-it which again, may or may not exist. One tin soldier (talk) 21:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Exactemundo! --larron (talk) 21:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Nevertheless it's arguable on both sides. But I believe there is more chance that she could always be free at the end of the contract unless she get married because:

1) otherwise it would not be consistent with Lev 25:44 : " Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids."

2) "she shall not go out like menservants do" could also mean that by the fact that she is an unmarried woman she can potentially get married with her master, in this case she will be part of the household, which is not possible for men...--MrXrM (talk) 21:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's the point: it's arguable on both sides. And maybe your views have been the more common. But do you think that during the centuries this verses were used as a moral guideline in Galilee, your view on the restrictions of bondmaidship was always adhered to? It certainly has been used in different ways in modern times! You may call this an abuse, but why should one see the current version of Christianity as to be more valid than the one used in the first half of the 19th century in the south of America? Only because it seems to be less immoral to us? --larron (talk) 21:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Because the Bible and its principles must be understood as a whole. We cannot pick elements that suits our own views while neglecting the others.MrXrM (talk) 22:44, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Says whom? again, who's argument are you putting forth? a modern fundamentalist who uses snakes? A modern Universalist? a modern Chinese convert? a 12th century philosopher? a 12th century drudgery worker? a 1st century reformer? The thing about holy books is that every single person reading them is going to take something different away from them, and there is no set way to read them. One tin soldier (talk) 00:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

---

Many clergy, such as Thornwell, linked support for slavery with support for traditional patriarchal families. He yoked abolitionism with women's rights and other northern reform movements that threatened to disrupt what he saw a the God-ordained order of things. From his reading of Scripture, the Presbyterian divine found "masters exhorted in the same connection with husbands, parents, magistrates"; the flip side of that equation was "slaves exhorted in the same connection with wives, children, subjects."

--South Carolina: A History by Walter B. Edgar, p. 293

--larron (talk) 20:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

There were also prominent Christian abolitionists such as William Wilberforce among many. It's not fair to put all the blame on Christiannity because it is clear that slavery enforced during 18th century was more similar to that of the Egyptians (which God explicitly told Jews not to reproduce), rather than what was shown in the Bible.

Jeremiah 17:9 says: "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked". People will find excuses for their evil thoughts at all cost, even if it compromises their faith, conscience and reason. It was true for religion but it was also for science when people began pretending that Africans were not really humans to justify slavery...--MrXrM (talk) 21:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not fair ? I'm not blaming Christianity for slavery, I'm only saying that Christian hadn't have any moral qualms over centuries when it comes to enslaving your brothers and sisters! Indeed, I admire Wilberforce and the powerful British abolition movement, but I'm often surprised when I read about the nonchalance with which these great advocates of anti-slavery disregarded starving Irish and working children... --larron (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Because you won't change human nature, it doesn't depend on what he believe. Christians with lust for power sometimes compromise christian doctrines, conscience, and reason. The best example is Roman Catholic church who killed many christians during the the dark-ages and reformation, because they refused to compromise their faith and acknowledge its authority. Staline and Hitler came to almost the same figures in term of deaths without religion.MrXrM (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

People will find excuses for their evil thoughts at all cost, even if it compromises their faith, conscience and reason. I doubt that James Henley Thornwell ever thought that he compromised his faith. He only compromised your faith.

christian doctrines if you prefer...

It was true for religion but it was also for science when people began pretending that Africans were not really humans to justify slavery Wow, a tu quoque :-) Shouldn't religion provide us with moral guidelines? The same cannot be said of science. --larron (talk) 21:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Exactly that's why I talked about compromise of principles, and conscience. There is no need for long discourses. In the Bible abuse is a sin, period. Love is the underlying principle for every moral principle it contains.

• That's why when the Pharisees asked Jesus for the highest command, he gave them both: Love for God and Love for your neighbour, and on these two "hang all the law and the prophets." (Matt 22:35-40)
• That's why when Israelites came out of slavery in Egypt, he told them "love the strangers among you, because you were a stranger in Egypt and it wasn't funny at all."
• That's why he could well have told them "you may adopt children from other nations, and they will dwell forever in your house, but I command you to love them. But do not adopt them among you => If hebrew children are adopted that means they have been abandonned in the first place and I don't want that" quite similar to what the civil law say regarding poor (financially) hebrews sold to stranger, or even other hebrews -> they are to be redeemed by a member of the family.
• *But guess what, in this day and age, pedophiles also adopt children. In the US they adopt them, abuse them, and exchange them on Facebook. Is adoption immoral? No it depends on motives, purposes, and context. => You could either leave a miserable Cambodian child in its misery, leave him as a potential prey for child traffickers who, will also adopt him but for different motives and different treatment, or pay Cambodian fees, and bring him into a foreign country where he will be tied forever to foreign family and doomed to do house chores; and give him love and esteem and respect. That's the ideal plan; sometimes parents adopting children fail and become abusive....
• The problem with 18th century slavery partisan using the Bible is that they excluded the part that say "you must love them as yourself".
• The other problem is that the Bible doesn't detail how to love strangers. It's difficult to explicitly tell how to love, but "love as yourself" should be enough, and I believe it's easy to determine when love is lacking. In any case it was an explicit command reiterated four times in the exact same manner. This is unique to the Bible. I agree the concept may be difficult to grasp today after all our recent history of slavery, but it still makes some sense.

MrXrM (talk) 22:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

You and your atheistic/socialistic/communistic/red republican/Jacobinistic ideas! Thornwell is all about love - like in Proverbs 13:24 (NASB):

He who withholds his rod hates his son, But he who loves him disciplines him diligently.

Do you imply corporal correction is immoral? That's another debate but psychological violence can have even more terrible effects in the long term. Does it mean reprimand is something immoral?MrXrM (talk) 17:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

But guess what, in this day and age, pedophiles also adopt children. In the US they adopt them, abuse them, and exchange them on Facebook. Is adoption immoral? What is your point? That slavery isn't immoral, too, but that there have been some unfortunate excesses?

Why should your ideas how to interpret the Bible be more valid than those of others? Because they are obvious to you? --larron (talk) 05:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not an interpretation it's an analogy. Is adoption moral? It could well become an issue in the future...MrXrM (talk) 17:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

---

James Henley Thornwell also wrote (in 1850):

' "The parties in this conflict are not merely Abolitionists and slaveholders, they are Atheists, Socialists, Communists, Red Republicans, Jacobins on the one side and the friends of order and regulated freedom on the other."

--The Rights and the Duties of Masters - a Sermon Preached at the Dedication of a Church is Charleston, by James Henley Thornwell

Darwinists are lucky to not have been in existence at this time! --larron (talk) 20:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

As I have already said, that is only one side of the story because other Christian leaders also fought against slavery during that time. --MrXrM (talk) 21:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

As we will find Christians on both sides of every conflict, does this mean that Christianity is always right? --larron (talk) 21:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Christianity couldn't make up its mind on the topic of slavery which is despised generally in modern Western society. Why not? Devil? --larron (talk) 21:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Your Thornwell quotes are worthless. I don't care that ignoramus A decontextualized Bible passage B and did C with it. If Thornwell was as ill-informed on the subject as you-so what? It's amazing how many atheists think this approach is an actual argument.

Guilt by Association Fallacy anyone?

To see this fallacy in reverse, I'll quote Jeffrey Dahmer's use of atheism to justify his mass murder: If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing… Ready to convert now, heathen?ScoobyRuvHound (talk) 17:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh no, Thornwell is much better informed about the subject than I am: I would never be invited to give the sermon at the dedication of a new church! Thornwell - a well educated minister (Havard!) - represented the view of the vast majority of the free inhabitants of South Carolina. That's the difference to Jeffrey Dahmer who only spoke for himself.

--larron (talk) 21:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Well you may also find a very long list of Harvard scholars who used darwin's findings to "preach" white supremacy to the mass and justify slavery... MrXrM (talk) 08:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, scholars in the early 20th century had some horrendous ideas! That's the thing: scientists have erred - and will err. The next generation looks at the errors, try to find out what was going wrong, and come up with more correct ideas. Science is ever changing...

But how can Christians, reading the Bible, come to so different an interpretation? Havn't they an unchanging, absolute moral? --larron (talk) 09:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes they do have an unchanging moral law : "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." (Matt 22:37-40)--MrXrM (talk) 15:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Versions

Funny how, when quoting 1 Timothy 6 you slip from NIV to NKJV. Would that be an attempt to avoid the 'S' word. Can you really not accept the moral relativism inherent within a book written in such a different age. The bible is fine with slavery which is completely understandable for a book written over that time period. It only becomes a problem if you believe it to be inerrant in which case slavery is the least of your problems. c.f. this unlikely tale. Placeholder (talk) 14:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

->Obviously no, because the previous verse contains the 'S' word. As I said earlier some translations are bad. I consider the verse as a whole. Moreover bondservant is synonymous to slave, the only difference may be that it's less common, and therefore less connoted to abusive behaviour. But that just shows the power of words, and why comparing multiple versions can be useful.

The problem is that in hebrew the same word could apply to different situations. For instance, in Exodus 21:7-11 KJV translates by "maidservant" where other translations use "slave", although in this particular context "maidservant" seem to be more appropriate than "bondwoman" also used by the KJV elsewhere. --MrXrM (talk) 16:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

But all this is obscuring the basic point. Many Christians point to the bible as the source of moral absolutism. However, the fact that the bible is OK with slavery means one of either

• Modern Christians should be OK with slavery

or

• The moral code within the bible is relativistic, not absolute.

And that's a biggie. If the bible can't be trusted as absolute on slavery then what else can it not be trusted on. How about homosexuality, as a random example. Placeholder (talk) 15:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

On contrary, I believe that with the title: "Slavery in the Bible", the point is to know "What does the Bible say about slavery". Whether it's moral or not is quite another issue (which may also fit in the article).

-

The Bible is OK with something called "slavery" but what is it like really? If those who used Bible to justify slavery in 18th century had included each and every aspects of what was prescribed, it probably wouldn't have been such a crime against humanity.

In Ex 23:9; Deut 10:19; Lev 19:34,25:35-37 God systematycally recall the time when their were reduce to slavery (the kind of slavery we know) and tell them: this is not what you are suppose to do! You've been there, you no what it is, and I don't want you do the same

In fact "bondservants" or "slaves" where nothing less than workers that were tied to a particular hebrew family in a foreign land. Hebrews couldn't trade slaves so when you acquire a bondservant (KJV) he/she would be at your service as long as she lived in Israel. In compensation the hebrews were obliged to treat them and love them as themselves (verses above) otherwise, the "bondservant" could legaly step out (escape) and dwell in any other place of his preference in Israel!!!! (Ex 23:9) This alone makes a huge difference to what we expect from the word "slavery", and completely different to what supposedly christians supported during the 18th century. --MrXrM (talk) 16:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Talk about a PRATT. Non Hebrew slaves were quite clearly property to be brought, sold and inherited. How ever much you try to hand wave it away this condones the ownership of other human beings. Calling them "bondservants" is a weasel word to try and avoid this. Like all other societies of the time the Hebrews owned slaves and the bible is quite OK with it. The very fact that this only applies to non Hebrews reflects the racism of 18th and 19th century US slavery where it was fine to own "Negroes" because they're "not us". OH, sure, it says be kind to foreigners but only the free ones. The enslaved ones you can beat as long as the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property. (Exodus 21:21 NIV) Placeholder (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

By the way, have you looked at argument 5 in the section "Attempts to justify the Bibles slavery passages"? Placeholder (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

We should use a single version in an article. Would New American Standard Bible be agreeable? --larron (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I guess it won't be a big issue using NASB.

As far as I know Hebrew could only buy slave but they couldn't sell them. --MrXrM (talk) 17:49, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Where is this stated? You shouldn't eat shellfish and you shouldn't sell slaves? What's about If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do? --larron (talk) 17:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

“And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.” (Exodus 21:16)

And as I wrote hebrew word for slave had many different meaning. The KJV makes clearly the distinction between a maidservant and a bondwomen: the daughter sold was promised for marriage, and if it was not concluded she was free after her six years of service --MrXrM (talk) 18:44, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

If you steal AND sell a man, you are in trouble, but were does the Bible tell that you cannot sell a man who is already rightfully in your property? --larron (talk) 19:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

And as I wrote hebrew word for slave had many different meaning There are different meanings, and I have no doubt that the acceptance of slavery changed over the centuries in Israel, reaching perhaps a low during the times in Egyptian exile or Babylonian captivity... --larron (talk) 20:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious that there were three categories of slaves and that non-Hebrew slaves were slaves in any way you care to think about it. Splitting hairs about the theoretical marital rights of female Hebrew slaves (who were presumably obliged to have sex whenever their purchasers wanted) doesn't change this fact.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 21:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

They would have sex only if they got married. No point to open a debate on this however.MrXrM (talk) 21:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, you have to split these hairs if you want to perpetuate the impression that there is a moral absolute given by holy scripture. I'm always amused how much work it takes to fit the unchanging moral imperatives of the bible to our current ideas of morality. And it always works! --larron (talk) 21:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I know that asking consistency from the inerrant bible is being a bit optimistic but I just want to get back to the hair-splitting in respect of the female Hebrew slaves.

MrXrM maintains that these women who were bought from their fathers were either married to their owners or, apparently if they were not pretty enough displeasing in the eyes of her master, given to the master's sons, or even let go. And there are biblical passages which back this up.

But in Exodus 21 we find when referring to the departure of time-served male debt slaves: "If his master gives him a wife, and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall go out alone." (He is also given the option of becoming a life slave is he wants to remain with his wife and family)

But my point is - who are these women who are given to the debt slave? They and their children are explicitly stated to be owned by their master. The passage implies the existence of an hereditary slave cast so perhaps they are daughters of other female slaves?--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 08:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I guess this woman was be part of the household. So if the man didn't want to wait the end of the 6 years to get married with someone else, if he wanted this particular woman, then he would have to become part of the household also. MrXrM (talk) 21:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know where this is all going, but to MR.X whoever - do you understand that the Jewish holy writings speaks in many places outside of what you know of as "the bible" about slavery, about owning slaves, about the proper way to sell them, treat them? I'm not sure how you are managing to hand wave over the whole "word for slave" thing without studying the talmud, at the very least, because there could be no way you understand the hebrew mindset about slavery from the ENGLISH christian bible alone. One tin soldier (talk) 22:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Hebrew mindset concerning slavery is today no less understandable for an english speaking christian than a hebrew Jewish living in Israel. However, it won't be understandable for neither of them if them try to make sense of it out of context, that is without the rest of the Bible (or Thorah if you prefer). Do you know there are many english speaking Jews around the world who read english jewish books?

Now concerning the Talmud: these are rabbinic laws instituted by the Pharisees(Rabbis), whose hypocrisy and misunderstanding of scriptures Jesus has clearly revealed. Therefore the Talmud is not authoritative for Christians.MrXrM (talk) 08:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

"proper way to sell them" Again they were not allowed to sell each other as slaves or trade humans. The only controversial verse on this regard is Ex 21:7 where hebrews could sell their daughters. But KJV uses the word "maidservant" instead of "bondwoman" for a reason: If she was to get married then the payment would represent dowry, and if not she would be free at the end of the 6th year and payment would then represent salary. She couldn't remain in the household forever unless she got married because that was exclusive to foreigners. "maidservant" and "bondwoman"(slave) use the same hebrew word, and KJV got it right, because otherwise it would contradict the rest of the Bible.--MrXrM (talk) 08:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

So what do you think the phrase: "the wife and her children shall belong to her master" means? It seems quite clear to me. As far as I can work out it means the wife and her children shall belong to her master. They are property. A slave cast.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 12:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I would rather call it a status rather than a cast because when escaped they gained full citizenship equally to the native jews --MrXrM (talk) 14:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

So you accept that they had the hereditary "status" of slave? Hey! I feel like we're getting somewhere!--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 15:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes but they could put an end to it if they wanted to: “Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee: He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him.” (Deut 23:15-16) – One reason more to treat him good if you want him to stay at your service.--MrXrM (talk) 21:01, 7 June 2014 (UTC)