"Slavery" in the Bible

[POI]

Allow us readers to be very careful. We must make sure we identify the proper context here, to assure against hasty and/or self-serving conclusions.

Exodus 21:2-3:

"2 “If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him." <-- Okay, this seems clear enough, if you are a purchased Hebrew, with a wife, you are both to go free in year 7.

Exodus 21:4:

"4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free." <-- Here is where things start to look sketchy for the modern-day believer. If the slave is provided with a wife, and they have kids, the wife and kids are to stay with the slave master. They are not to go free.

Exodus 21:5-6:

"5 “But if the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,’ 6 then his master must take him before the judges.[a] He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life." <-- More uncomfortability for the Christian here. Without getting into the weeds, common sense suggests a special rule is made to trick the male Hebrew into remaining a slave for life.

Leviticus 25:44-46:

"44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 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." <-- More awkwardness for the believer, as the Bible reader clammers to find a rationale to make this passage not read the way it does.

Here is a basic definition of chattel slavery --> "Chattel slavery is full slavery in its traditional form whereby slaves are the complete property of their master, can be bought and sold by him and treated in any way that he wishes, which may include torture and other brutality, excessively bad working conditions, and sexual exploitation"

Looks like all the ingredients fit the given Bible description here, minus the torture. Wait a minute, this is covered in the rest of Exodus 21. (i.e.):

"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." <-- So basically, since the slave is your property, beatings with impunity are acceptable. Just don't kill them.

For debate:

By applying common sense, does/did the Bible ever, and/or currently still sanction chattel slavery?

Again, by using common sense, can a believer effectively use the Bible in support of breeding chattel slaves?

************************

Before you answer, consider this.... Since the NT does not mention the abolition of 'slavery', and yet the Bible makes further proclamation(s) and/or addendums (in favor of retaining 'slavery',) this means the Bible is not against chattel slavery either. Further, the Christian may want to introduce the importance of the 'golden rule'. However, the specifics outweigh the generals. The specifics of the rules for engagement of slavery are outside the 'golden rule'. Otherwise, the Bible would be a one-pager. 'Slavery' is an expressed exception to the general rule. Thus, anytime a specific scenario is not invoked, yes, 'golden rule.'

[Miles]

For debate:

By applying common sense, does/did the Bible ever, and/or currently still sanction chattel slavery?

Yup.

Again, by using common sense, can a believer effectively use the Bible in support of breeding chattel slaves?

Yup.

No gettin' around it, god had a thing for slavery. He also had a thing for killing practicing gays. Supported both, he did. But people today pretty much thumb their noses at such behavior, figuring that at times god ain't got the morals of a Florida fruit fly.


.

[TRANSPONDER]

This has been discussed several times here as elsewhere. Of course it condones and even endorses, slavery. NT and OId. One doesn't even need to show that the Slave states could cite the Bible as validation while the Abolitionists had to argue humanism, (though Soulifying human rights to give it some Christian Clout (1) One poster did a really towering job of arguing that slavery was Not endorsed by the Bible, I doubt anyone could have done better, but it did end up - as i recall - reading and quoting from a Bible that did not exist and denying the one that did. And that has happened a few times before,as well.

(1) which is what counted then rather as science got the clout later on and Christianity has to try to claim scientific validity for itself.

[POI]

This has been discussed several times here as elsewhere. Of course it condones and even endorses, slavery. NT and OId. One doesn't even need to show that the Slave states could cite the Bible as validation while the Abolitionists had to argue humanism, (though Soulifying human rights to give it some Christian Clout (1) One poster did a really towering job of arguing that slavery was Not endorsed by the Bible, I doubt anyone could have done better, but it did end up - as i recall - reading and quoting from a Bible that did not exist and denying the one that did. And that has happened a few times before,as well.

(1) which is what counted then rather as science got the clout later on and Christianity has to try to claim scientific validity for itself.

The objective of this topic is to get the Christian to acknowledge that chattel slavery is condoned by the Bible. Maybe this is why I hear 'crickets' from the theist's side. The silence is deafening. I'm aware this is not a new topic. However, many apologists will argue for 'certain types' of slavery.

[boatsnguitars]

What continues to trouble me is how modern Christians whitewash their own history as social mores and ethics change. Anyone who is familiar with the true history of America knows it wasn't a land where rugged individuals went to work hard, make their fortune and transcend Class. It was a land where England sent their "trash", the poor, lazy, insane, criminals, etc. Most died within the first few years, even after the first 100 years of England sending them - and the English upper class didn't care. The Church was part of it.

Children were sold into indentured servitude, and as we know, slavery was defended by Christians and the Church until only the last few generations.

But, after the Enlightenment, and generations later the Secularists arguing against slavery, Christians finally decided to get on board - by claiming Christianity was always against slavery. It's painful to watch because it shows how tortured their logic has to be to contradict the Bible, but also, it's painful to see people who are either liars - or so utterly ignorant of their own history and facts that I wonder why we're still listening to them.

The fact is, slavery was normal and common for all the world until 1888 (and even continues today, but illegally). Many of the people who supported were Christians, and they defended it - when at long last people questioned it - right until the end. Worse, Chrisitans didn't even think of arguing against it, or indentured servitude until the 1800's.

But Christians think that they're not to blame (though they held the power for 1800 years). Who is to blame, then? The slaves?

Introduction
Slavery has been an enduring institution throughout human history. It has existed in different forms and been justified by various means, including religion. Christianity, one of the world's major religions, has a long and complex history with slavery. The Church, as an institution, played a significant role in supporting and perpetuating the practice of slavery from the early days of Christianity to its abolition in the 19th century. This report will examine the Church's involvement in supporting slavery, its theological justifications for the practice, and its eventual condemnation of slavery.

Early Christian Support for Slavery
The early Christian Church was born into a world where slavery was a common practice. In the New Testament, slaves are mentioned frequently, and the apostles give instructions on how slaves should obey their masters (Ephesians 6:5; Colossians 3:22; 1 Timothy 6:1-2). The Church Fathers, who were influential Christian theologians from the 2nd to the 8th centuries, also endorsed slavery. Saint Augustine, one of the most prominent Church Fathers, defended the institution of slavery, stating that it was a necessary evil for the maintenance of social order (The City of God, XIX.15).

Theological Justifications for Slavery
The Church's support for slavery was grounded in theological justifications. One of the primary arguments was that slavery was a result of the biblical story of Noah and his son Ham. According to this interpretation, Ham was cursed by God to be a slave to his brothers (Genesis 9:25-27). This interpretation was used to justify the enslavement of Africans, who were seen as the descendants of Ham. Another theological justification was the belief that non-Christians were inferior and that it was the Church's duty to bring them into Christianity through enslavement (Pope Nicholas V, Dum Diversas, 1452).

Church Involvement in the Transatlantic Slave Trade
The Church was also directly involved in the transatlantic slave trade, which lasted from the 16th to the 19th century. Many of the European powers involved in the slave trade were Catholic countries, and the Church was complicit in the enslavement of Africans. Pope Paul III issued a papal bull, Sublimus Dei, in 1537, which prohibited the enslavement of Native Americans but did not extend to Africans (Sublimus Dei). In fact, the Catholic Church was one of the largest slaveholders in the New World, with religious orders owning plantations and thousands of slaves.

Church Opposition to Abolitionism
As the abolitionist movement gained momentum in the 19th century, the Church initially opposed it. The Vatican issued a statement in 1866, which condemned abolitionism and defended the Church's historical support for slavery (Apostolicae Sedis). It wasn't until 1888 that Pope Leo XIII finally issued a statement condemning slavery as "intrinsically evil" (In Plurimis).

Conclusion
The Christian Church's involvement in supporting and perpetuating the practice of slavery is a dark chapter in its history. From the early days of Christianity to the 19th century, the Church endorsed slavery and provided theological justifications for the practice. The Church was also directly involved in the transatlantic slave trade and owned thousands of slaves. It wasn't until the late 19th century that the Church finally condemned slavery as "intrinsically evil." The Church's historical support for slavery is a reminder that religion, like any human institution, can be used to

Note:
1. Reverend Alexander Campbell, a prominent leader in the Restoration Movement, defended slavery in a series of articles he wrote for the Millennial Harbinger in 1835:
"The principle of slavery, as defined by the Bible, is not contrary to the principles of justice, benevolence, or Christianity. . . . Slavery is not a moral evil, as many who denounce it, without reference to the Bible, suppose."

2. In 1856, Reverend James Henley Thornwell, a Presbyterian minister and professor of theology at Columbia Theological Seminary, wrote in defense of slavery:
"Slavery, as it exists in the United States, is a moral, a social, and a political blessing. . . . The institution of slavery is not an evil, but a good - a positive good."

3. Father John Bannon, a Catholic priest who served as chaplain to Confederate General Robert E. Lee's army, defended slavery in his sermons:
"God Almighty has made the white man superior to the black man, and the black man was given to the white man to serve him, and if the abolitionists don't like it, they can go to hell."

Christians ought to show good faith in recognizing their history. They'd be seen as more moral if they'd admit that slavery is wrong and the Bible does a poor hjob addressing it. However, they do the Apologist Dance and try to tell us Up is Down, and the Bible doesn't say what it says...


Oh, this is Pope Leo - there's a picture of him because that's how recent this was:

Also, fun fact, he loved cocaine.
Also, he signed In Plurimis on May 5, 1888, and Brazil's Catholic leadership 'suddenly' understood slavery was bad and signed their anti-slavery law on the 15th. They had to wait for the Church to condemn it. But, no, it wasn't the Christians fault! /sc

[TRANSPONDER]

This has been discussed several times here as elsewhere. Of course it condones and even endorses, slavery. NT and OId. One doesn't even need to show that the Slave states could cite the Bible as validation while the Abolitionists had to argue humanism, (though Soulifying human rights to give it some Christian Clout (1) One poster did a really towering job of arguing that slavery was Not endorsed by the Bible, I doubt anyone could have done better, but it did end up - as i recall - reading and quoting from a Bible that did not exist and denying the one that did. And that has happened a few times before,as well.

(1) which is what counted then rather as science got the clout later on and Christianity has to try to claim scientific validity for itself.

The objective of this topic is to get the Christian to acknowledge that chattel slavery is condoned by the Bible. Maybe this is why I hear 'crickets' from the theist's side. The silence is deafening. I'm aware this is not a new topic. However, many apologists will argue for 'certain types' of slavery.

It's a valid topic and none the worse for having been raised before. It is indeed one of the Biggies and the Theist apologists never mind raising their biggies time and again, to get atheists to admit that they do not know how Life started, how the Cosmos began (there are serious rewrites of the BB going on ) and what consciousness really is, which we admit. So maybe Bible -apologists should admit that the Bible condones slavery. Yes 'it was the norm for those times' which is just what the Bible is - things written by people who thought that way and wrote things that are wrong, unacceptable today and historically questionable. But to do that would mean that the Bible is open to question, like any other book and cannot be given a degree of validity beyond that. And that is what they logically, evidentially and with arguments based on the Bible itself, should recognise and admit

The responses are awaited.

[JoeyKnothead]

And to think, if God had only said such as, "No, ya can't own no slaves, what kinda jerk are you?"

This, if only to me, is clear indication of some folks trying to justify their evil.

"We wanna own folks, but we gotta put us a good spin on it."

"We'll say they're evil."

"Naw, then we get slaved."

"Let's say God okayed it."

"Brilliant!"

[TRANSPONDER]

Since we are getting a deafening silence from the bible apologists here, i had a search online where you only have to type in 'Flood geology' to be inundated with a lot of Genesis - apologetics. What I found was the usual, as exampled in the 'non stamp -collector' animation that one would have thought was misrepresenting the Christian apologetic (where there is one) but it is spot on - they take Hebrew slavery which can be argued as not slavery at all and totally ignore the slavery of foreigners which was absolutely chattel slavery.

How it absolutely looks is that human morals have superseded Biblical in that area at least, and that means it is not the word of a good, wise, kind and all knowing god but the writing of people of the time and that and no more.

I have to mention an apologetics clip that stuck in my mind - some preacher wagging the Bible about and saying "I have a document..." as though calling it a document gave it authority. A Stockbond in a defunct gold mine is a 'document' in that respect or so is an astrological horoscope. Just having it printed doesn't make it true. What's really bad there is not just that he was wrong, but it was a rhetorical swindle that really insulted the intelligence of the people he was speaking to. And they wonder why atheists 'keep talking about something they don't believe in'? Because this sort of thing is a public con and swindle and deserves exposing.

[boatsnguitars]

The responses are awaited.

This is why I have such a seething hatred for Apologists. They know their former defenses of slavery were horrible. They have lost the battle, so the retreat and do what? Do they talk amongst themselves to say, "Gee, fellas, we really need to understand why God was so happy to allow slavery, when it seems so obviously wrong - morality was written on our hearts, right? But for thousands of years, humans felt it was moral. Chrisitans defended both slavery and indetured servitude of children. Young children. This is a problem and we need to acknowledge it."

But, no, they are off in some other forum spouting the same apologetics they tried on us to new "marks". They will justify it as "Those guys just didn't listen! They didn't agree with us, so that means they didn't listen!"

Apologists are propagandists. They do the same thing: Lie, damage the discourse, and undermine Humanities chance at thriving. Convince me I'm wrong!

[1213]

...
So basically, since the slave is your property, beatings with impunity are acceptable. Just don't kill them.[/color]
...

I don't think that is true, for example because it is said also:

“If a man strikes his servant’s eye, or his maid’s eye, and destroys it, he shall let him go free for his eye’s sake. If he strikes out his man-servant’s tooth, or his maid-servant’s tooth, he shall let him go free for his tooth’s sake.
Ex. 21:26-27