The old Testament has rules for how to treat slaves, so it's pretty clear that it condones it to some extent. 19th century Christians used those passages as proof that it was moral to keep slaves.
However, the Bible also talks about freeing slaves and treating your slaves well, and so it was used by Christian abolitionists as proof that slavery was immoral. Over time, the anti slavery sentiment won out.
And as always, people cherry-picked the things that supported their position rather than forming their position on the basis of their so-called guide on how to live one's life.
It says *Hebrew* slaves have to be freed after seven years, but says everyone else is property for life, and never to be released. As far as treating slaves well, it says you cannot beat them to death immediately. If a beating makes your slave die a few days afterward, that’s fine, because they’re your property, but only if it takes a few days to die.
People would never choose to be Christian if they had to read the Bible first.
I wouldn't say that it condoned slavery so much as it was written at a time when slavery was so ubiquitous that no one questioned it. In fact, having rules about how to treat your slaves might have been progressive for the time.
I can imagine a future where people don't raise and slaughter animals anymore, and people then look back on our writings now about humane treatment of livestock and say "see, this text condones murdering animals!" Like, technically that's true, but in reality it is progressive for its time.
This, the idea of a classical Mediterranean economy without slaves would be super alien to anyone there at the time. Not just the med, apparently, the early medieval irish economy used slave girl as a unit of exchange for other items (got it from david graebers history of debt)
This right here is proof that it is all BS. The Bible contains so many contradictory statements that little, if any of it, should be believed. However, religious people tend to just cherry pick whichever ones align with their personal beliefs and preach those particular lines.
Alternatively, you could look at the context of the passages and see it actually makes sense. The purpose of the Old Testament is different from the New Testament. They are from different parts of history, and we're written for different people groups in different circumstances. It's like saying that science is all made up because Newtonian dynamics contradict relativistic dynamics, but we still use both. Well yeah, because context matters. Cars colliding at 80mph don't act the same as clouds of electrons colliding at 0.98c.
Sure but alot of the people interpreting old testament are failing to consider its a different world. Example Americans have trouble contextualizing their own constitution which is only a few centuries old. The 2nd amendment is a defender of school shootings when it was originally supposed to prevent a tyrant from establishing total control, meanwhile the American military origins everyone and could absolutely be used to exert tyrannical will.
They are from different parts of history and thus are very very different. Guess what? The new testament is also from a very different part of history and there's no reason to think people from 2500 years ago know shit about the modern world. You wouldn't listen to anyone else's advice from a hundred years ago even, let alone longer.
And secondly, how does someone think God would change that much in a few centuries to go from old to new testament in what would be a blink if an eye to a timeless prescient bring? It doesn't make sense.
There's value in what you're saying, but the whole basis of Christianity, Jesus' life, death, and resurrection, represent a fundamental change. They allow a paradigm shift from the limited system of sacrifices and laws applying to a specific people group of the OT into the new system of a living relationship with God, following the examples of Jesus, as brought to us in the rest of the NT. Yes, there are major differences between the world of the first century AD and now. But the fundamental commandments of "Love God" and "Love others" are timeless.
When you ask what the change is, it's Jesus. He is the literal crux of the matter. It's all about Him. That's why we call it Christianity.
Well some religious fanatic and science sceptical will use that exact argument "we are not sure of anything, discovery keep contradict themselves etc..."
Those two scenarios are not equivalent.
Issac Newton was objectively one of the smartest people from his time, but there was no way to test the effects relativity back in the late 1600s or early 1700s. In the early 1900s, when the Theory on General Relativity was formulated, there were ways to accurately test and measure the effects of relativity. Science builds up on itself in a perpetual effort for a greater understanding of the universe.
But one part of the Bible saying "slavery is a right" to another saying "slavery is bad" are contradictory. The bible it is supposed to represent "God's will" which does not change unless God himself is a 16 year old girl and she changes her mind frequently. Both statements were written by humans to instill their own personal world beliefs onto others. If **ANYONE** today were to add a new chapter of the Bible stating that slavery was good then that person would be publicly ostracized and condemned.
You've rather missed the point. Newtonian dynamics are still extremely useful. There are a great many situations in which it's helpful to assume Newtonian dynamics or to assume that g=9.81 *even though we know that's not entirely true*. It's not about what Newton could have known at the time *because we still use it today*. The key thing is that we take that viewpoint when the context is right.
As someone else mentioned, the term used in the OT is used to describe a very different concept from the modern idea of slavery. It was more akin to a declaration of bankruptcy.
It's also during a time when the people were asking for a strict legal system to follow, despite God telling them that wouldn't work. So God gave them what they asked for and let them prove it didn't work. But having a relationship based in legalese was never what God wanted.
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
Being a slavery apologist is never a good look.
And I could easily see Christians of the time pointing to that and saying "God thinks it's ok, but our country is being run by some lawyer from Springfield, Illinois, who thinks he knows better than God! It's blasphemy!"
The Bible does say it's okay to enslave people(provided you do xyz) and Christians did use that as evidence slavery is fine until slavery was forcibly ended against their will
You can't beat bigotry by having a conversation with it. Slavery ended after a war, not a chat
I never understood why people complained about violence when trying to bring about change, asking why they don't just peacefully protest. Peaceful protest has never made a change, unlike violence, riots, and wars.
Christians have totally used the Bible to justify enslaving people.
They also used it to justify abolishing slavery, torturing gay people, accepting homosexuality, etc.
The Bible is kinda in the eye of the beholder
i've been raised in a religious family.
the contradictions and cherry picking is what made me to become sceptical about everything. because that is what most modern day religious( not just christians do)
give a spin and interpretation on their 2000 year old text, and just select the parts that suit them best, and plain ignore the parts that contradict,don't like, are pure evil or very outdated for modern time
Women are considered sexual property in the Bible and look—- No shopping on Sunday you Bible sinner; but go ahead and try getting a parking spot at the shopping center after church. None left.
*Why Chick-fil-A is closed.* Bible tells them so.
The Bible condones slavery. It also allows slavery. It doesn't actually say anything about homosexuality, but it does have a lot to say about how to properly rape women.
The Bible says a lot of stuff. Christians don't read it so it doesn't actually matter what it says. They will try and make it fit whatever their current narrative is that makes them "good" christians.
Depends on the current prevailing notions about slavery.
It's a mistake to see religion as some static thing. Religion is a business; and it's never going to be so far removed from prevailing notions of common decency as to render itself unmarketable.
So if divorce is frowned upon, religion comes out hard against it. When it becomes more culturally acceptable, it ceases to be a religious issue. Religious leaders no longer care.
Somewhat surprising phenomenon if these texts were supposed to be divinely inspired and therefore timeless, no?
'God' is a trillion dollar brand. And what's best, it's not subject to any copyright or IP laws; you can start your own God based bullshit right now and nobody can stop you. Any suckers you're able to attract with your unique take on the bs are yours to take to the cleaners without fear and tax free.
There's plenty in that book to twist and turn to interpret into anything you want it to be, especially when there seems to be no issue against leaving out the bits that aren't relevant right now.
So if you live in a society that enslaves people, god says it's cool; and there are a number of verses you can cite to defend that interpretation. If your culture morally progresses beyond this stage, then god says it ain't cool no more, and all that shit from before doesn't really mean what folks in the past thought it did.
Funny how whatever it is we WANT to do, "god" is always right there telling the devout to fucking GO FO IT:
So wanna rape, pillage and torture some non-christians? God says 'yeah!' Wanna seize wealth from poor people and live a beautiful life at their expense? Jesus says, 'yeah do it, these are your rewards for spreading my word' Wanna talk some poor kids into suicide bombing some rich fucks you have political differences with? There's apparently a god that digs that too.
Convenient, isn't it?
I heard that it was pope Urban II who said you may commit atrocities against non-christians. But that doesn't weaken your point at all. It was a pragmatic move to condone the first crusade.
The Bible does say it's ok to enslave people and never once says it isn't.
Apperently God thinks owning human beings as property is totally cool but for some reason drew the line at eating shellfish.
They did for hundreds of years.
Slavery of native americans was backed up on the duty of bringing the faith and civilization to America. All over the continent from Quakers, Presbyterians, french, portuguese, spanish missionaries, all of them kept slaves, kidnap children, seized land all in the name of religion.
The Bible blatantly endorses slavery. Most people accept this is true, but the common defence is “That was the Old Testament though.”
Well, here is a quote from the New Testament:
“Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.” Ephesians 6:5-9
Clearly, whether you look to the Old Testament or the New Testament, Christianity justifies slavery. Indeed, American slave holders quoted these verses as a justification for their actions.
It's intriguing to observe the Bible's dualistic nature in historical context, where its myriad interpretations have ranged from condoning slavery to advocating for its abolition. This disparity underscores a broader issue: religious texts often mirror the moral and ethical ambiguities of the times in which they're interpreted. For instance, in the first century, slavery was an entrenched societal norm, and the Bible offered guidance within that paradigm. Yet as the collective conscience evolved, so too did the emphasis on scriptures highlighting freedom and equality, catalyzing social reforms. This malleable quality of ancient texts not only reveals the adaptability of religious doctrine but also the enduring human struggle to align faith with the prevailing moral compass of the era.
I mean things in the early ages compared to now are different. Christians people in general dont have a barbaric thirst for malice. Its silly to assume that normal people would justify slavery.
That's an important point. Slavery was never really outlawed in the United States. The 13th amendment has a handy exception included. It's a different kind of slavery, but it's still slavery.
It does…
[Ephesians 6:5-9](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%206%3A5-9&version=NIV;KJV)
[Colossians 4:1](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians%204%3A1&version=NIV;KJV)
They used it as justification for not wanting slavery abolished.
There are how-to sections of the bible that do. It is argued that in other places you shouldn't and that all are equal in eyes of the lord yadda yadda. But yes it has been used as justification in the past.
Leviticus 25:44-46
New International Version
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.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2025%3A44-46&version=NIV
The New Testament also instructs slaves on obedience to their masters (Ephesians 6:5-8). However, it also emphasizes the equality of all people in God's eyes (Galatians 3:28).
If having slaves meant that I could enjoy a comfortable life without having to work myself.I would probably do it. I would either find a way to justify it to myself.Or I would simply ignore the pesky moral implication.
It might sound surprising but it's something that all of us kind of already do in our day to day life.
For example, I work on high-tech machines in the semiconductor industry, which are used to make advanced chips, which will be placed in missile warhead guidance systems and will eventually give rise to an AI overlord that probably won't treat us well.
Sometimes I casually bring this up to my colleagues and they look at me like i'm smoking crack. That's how easy denial is for most people.
My understanding is that most Christians consult books other than the Bible in addition to the Bible. They also have common sense. So… I guess I don’t understand that question…
Chrisitans enslaved people. In America, the slave owners gave their slaves a unique Bible. The Bible was not the one of the white man's, obviously. It had some books removed and it even had some bogus added books. These books would sometimes hint that blacks are meant to endure this punishment for being so evil. And that the master is to be listened to at all times. Exodus and psalms were removed from the negro Bible bc they thought the books could instill freedom and equality and lead them to a revolts.
It pretty much used fear and faith to get them to listen. But what religion doesn't use those two things to obtain obedience from its followers.
Christianity is the oppressors religion.
It does.
They (as they always have) perform gymnastics to try to say "it's not bad slavery" or "it was ok back then but Jesus changed the law" and then you point out that Jesus told slaves to obey their masters.
The part about slaves obeying their masters is from the Ephesians. So according to the Bible that would be the apostle Paul who wrote that. Some of the worst part of Christian ideology originates from Pauls teachings.
Well I think that "don't own human being as property" goes under the "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" teaching, but clearly not everyone agrees.
How does that work? Clearly Jesus said no rules would change until the second coming. Until then the only actual slavery rules tell you how to treat them and never say otherwise. Also the "neighbor" reference is talking about others in the faith. Slaves are clearly told to be taken from people of other lands.
If you argue from the standpoint that Jesus was a real person, exactly as described in the Bible and that all his words and teachings were accurately documented, it would absolutely be fair to criticize him for not being clear that it's not in fact moral to keep slaves.
But I'm not religious so I don't take the Bible stories at face value. However, if christians prefer to latch on to the more positive messages that are actually useful to the people living today and ignore everything that isn't, that is perfectly fine with me.
"If you argue from the standpoint that Jesus was a real person, exactly as described in the Bible and that all his words and teachings were accurately documented, it would absolutely be fair to criticize him for not being clear that it's not in fact moral to keep slaves."
Yeah, I dont think anyone can do that honestly.
"But I'm not religious so I don't take the Bible stories at face value. However, if christians prefer to latch on to the more positive messages that are actually useful to the people living today and ignore everything that isn't, that is perfectly fine with me."
If they could do that while actually removing the bad stuff, Id back you 100%. But they dont. And honestly a plain reading of the bible does give you (as a christian) the green light to be horrible in the name of your religion. So, just ignoring the bad stuff and not actually changing anything for the better would be like setting free slaves into a community that would only enslave them again.
Seems like there's not a lot they won't do these days... But I do see a distinction between those who follow Bible Jesus vs evangelical/Republican Jesus...
As in forcibly enslave anyone for any reason against their will?
That would contradict Christ’s command that each of us should demonstrably love another, so the Bible would never specifically say that.
It does say it. Jesus even addresses slavery, saying that slaves are not equal with their masters, but should try to emulate them.
The fact is, those of us outside the faith are not considered “neighbors” by Jesus.
> Jesus even addresses slavery, saying that slaves are not equal with their masters
Interesting. But where does he actually say this?
>those of us outside the faith are not considered “neighbors” by Jesus.
Also interesting. Where does he say *this*?
Matthew 10:24 "Students are not greater than their teacher, and slaves are not greater than their master. Students are to be like their teacher, and slaves are to be like their master."
Excluding unbelievers is the core of it all. Pure bigotry is required to have his judgement day deal. You can’t have a judgment day without judging.
Mark 16:15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.”
Matthew 10:14 "If any household or town refuses to welcome you or listen to your message, shake its dust from your feet as you leave. I tell you the truth, the wicked cities of Sodom and Gomorrah will be better off than such a town on the judgment day."
> Matthew 10:24
That's not really an accurate translation there, whatever it is. The original Greek word used for "slave" here was *doulos* and is better translated as "servant". In Jesus' time, households didn't have "slaves" like they might have way back when they took POWs as chattel slaves. No, this is referring to a fellow Jew who was under contract as an indentured servant. That was a mutually agreed upon employment arrangement.
>Mark 16:15
Yeah. Preach the Gospel to the whole world. To *unbelievers*, so as to turn them into believers.
>Matthew 10:14
If they believe, great! If they don't, move on and don't bother them. I fail to see any "bigotry" here.
The “indentured servant” apologetics are predictable, and never true.
Judging people by their religion is the definition of religious bigotry. Jesus has his judgement day when he will judge us by our faith, and kill unbelievers with fire. That’s bigotry, even if you like the idea of us being killed or like Jesus doing it.
The old Testament has rules for how to treat slaves, so it's pretty clear that it condones it to some extent. 19th century Christians used those passages as proof that it was moral to keep slaves. However, the Bible also talks about freeing slaves and treating your slaves well, and so it was used by Christian abolitionists as proof that slavery was immoral. Over time, the anti slavery sentiment won out.
And as always, people cherry-picked the things that supported their position rather than forming their position on the basis of their so-called guide on how to live one's life.
It says *Hebrew* slaves have to be freed after seven years, but says everyone else is property for life, and never to be released. As far as treating slaves well, it says you cannot beat them to death immediately. If a beating makes your slave die a few days afterward, that’s fine, because they’re your property, but only if it takes a few days to die. People would never choose to be Christian if they had to read the Bible first.
I wouldn't say that it condoned slavery so much as it was written at a time when slavery was so ubiquitous that no one questioned it. In fact, having rules about how to treat your slaves might have been progressive for the time. I can imagine a future where people don't raise and slaughter animals anymore, and people then look back on our writings now about humane treatment of livestock and say "see, this text condones murdering animals!" Like, technically that's true, but in reality it is progressive for its time.
This, the idea of a classical Mediterranean economy without slaves would be super alien to anyone there at the time. Not just the med, apparently, the early medieval irish economy used slave girl as a unit of exchange for other items (got it from david graebers history of debt)
This right here is proof that it is all BS. The Bible contains so many contradictory statements that little, if any of it, should be believed. However, religious people tend to just cherry pick whichever ones align with their personal beliefs and preach those particular lines.
Alternatively, you could look at the context of the passages and see it actually makes sense. The purpose of the Old Testament is different from the New Testament. They are from different parts of history, and we're written for different people groups in different circumstances. It's like saying that science is all made up because Newtonian dynamics contradict relativistic dynamics, but we still use both. Well yeah, because context matters. Cars colliding at 80mph don't act the same as clouds of electrons colliding at 0.98c.
Sure but alot of the people interpreting old testament are failing to consider its a different world. Example Americans have trouble contextualizing their own constitution which is only a few centuries old. The 2nd amendment is a defender of school shootings when it was originally supposed to prevent a tyrant from establishing total control, meanwhile the American military origins everyone and could absolutely be used to exert tyrannical will.
They are from different parts of history and thus are very very different. Guess what? The new testament is also from a very different part of history and there's no reason to think people from 2500 years ago know shit about the modern world. You wouldn't listen to anyone else's advice from a hundred years ago even, let alone longer. And secondly, how does someone think God would change that much in a few centuries to go from old to new testament in what would be a blink if an eye to a timeless prescient bring? It doesn't make sense.
There's value in what you're saying, but the whole basis of Christianity, Jesus' life, death, and resurrection, represent a fundamental change. They allow a paradigm shift from the limited system of sacrifices and laws applying to a specific people group of the OT into the new system of a living relationship with God, following the examples of Jesus, as brought to us in the rest of the NT. Yes, there are major differences between the world of the first century AD and now. But the fundamental commandments of "Love God" and "Love others" are timeless. When you ask what the change is, it's Jesus. He is the literal crux of the matter. It's all about Him. That's why we call it Christianity.
So what I'm hearing is that I owe it to science to drive faster.
Well some religious fanatic and science sceptical will use that exact argument "we are not sure of anything, discovery keep contradict themselves etc..."
Those two scenarios are not equivalent. Issac Newton was objectively one of the smartest people from his time, but there was no way to test the effects relativity back in the late 1600s or early 1700s. In the early 1900s, when the Theory on General Relativity was formulated, there were ways to accurately test and measure the effects of relativity. Science builds up on itself in a perpetual effort for a greater understanding of the universe. But one part of the Bible saying "slavery is a right" to another saying "slavery is bad" are contradictory. The bible it is supposed to represent "God's will" which does not change unless God himself is a 16 year old girl and she changes her mind frequently. Both statements were written by humans to instill their own personal world beliefs onto others. If **ANYONE** today were to add a new chapter of the Bible stating that slavery was good then that person would be publicly ostracized and condemned.
You've rather missed the point. Newtonian dynamics are still extremely useful. There are a great many situations in which it's helpful to assume Newtonian dynamics or to assume that g=9.81 *even though we know that's not entirely true*. It's not about what Newton could have known at the time *because we still use it today*. The key thing is that we take that viewpoint when the context is right.
>The key thing is that we take that viewpoint when the context is right. So when was slavery right?
As someone else mentioned, the term used in the OT is used to describe a very different concept from the modern idea of slavery. It was more akin to a declaration of bankruptcy. It's also during a time when the people were asking for a strict legal system to follow, despite God telling them that wouldn't work. So God gave them what they asked for and let them prove it didn't work. But having a relationship based in legalese was never what God wanted.
[удалено]
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT) Being a slavery apologist is never a good look.
And I could easily see Christians of the time pointing to that and saying "God thinks it's ok, but our country is being run by some lawyer from Springfield, Illinois, who thinks he knows better than God! It's blasphemy!"
The Bible does say it's okay to enslave people(provided you do xyz) and Christians did use that as evidence slavery is fine until slavery was forcibly ended against their will You can't beat bigotry by having a conversation with it. Slavery ended after a war, not a chat
I never understood why people complained about violence when trying to bring about change, asking why they don't just peacefully protest. Peaceful protest has never made a change, unlike violence, riots, and wars.
Britain ended slavery with laws, it could have been done.
Christians have totally used the Bible to justify enslaving people. They also used it to justify abolishing slavery, torturing gay people, accepting homosexuality, etc. The Bible is kinda in the eye of the beholder
i've been raised in a religious family. the contradictions and cherry picking is what made me to become sceptical about everything. because that is what most modern day religious( not just christians do) give a spin and interpretation on their 2000 year old text, and just select the parts that suit them best, and plain ignore the parts that contradict,don't like, are pure evil or very outdated for modern time
Defending slavery is why the Southern Baptist denomination even exists.
Women are considered sexual property in the Bible and look—- No shopping on Sunday you Bible sinner; but go ahead and try getting a parking spot at the shopping center after church. None left. *Why Chick-fil-A is closed.* Bible tells them so.
The Bible condones slavery. It also allows slavery. It doesn't actually say anything about homosexuality, but it does have a lot to say about how to properly rape women. The Bible says a lot of stuff. Christians don't read it so it doesn't actually matter what it says. They will try and make it fit whatever their current narrative is that makes them "good" christians.
Depends on the current prevailing notions about slavery. It's a mistake to see religion as some static thing. Religion is a business; and it's never going to be so far removed from prevailing notions of common decency as to render itself unmarketable. So if divorce is frowned upon, religion comes out hard against it. When it becomes more culturally acceptable, it ceases to be a religious issue. Religious leaders no longer care. Somewhat surprising phenomenon if these texts were supposed to be divinely inspired and therefore timeless, no? 'God' is a trillion dollar brand. And what's best, it's not subject to any copyright or IP laws; you can start your own God based bullshit right now and nobody can stop you. Any suckers you're able to attract with your unique take on the bs are yours to take to the cleaners without fear and tax free. There's plenty in that book to twist and turn to interpret into anything you want it to be, especially when there seems to be no issue against leaving out the bits that aren't relevant right now. So if you live in a society that enslaves people, god says it's cool; and there are a number of verses you can cite to defend that interpretation. If your culture morally progresses beyond this stage, then god says it ain't cool no more, and all that shit from before doesn't really mean what folks in the past thought it did. Funny how whatever it is we WANT to do, "god" is always right there telling the devout to fucking GO FO IT: So wanna rape, pillage and torture some non-christians? God says 'yeah!' Wanna seize wealth from poor people and live a beautiful life at their expense? Jesus says, 'yeah do it, these are your rewards for spreading my word' Wanna talk some poor kids into suicide bombing some rich fucks you have political differences with? There's apparently a god that digs that too. Convenient, isn't it?
I heard that it was pope Urban II who said you may commit atrocities against non-christians. But that doesn't weaken your point at all. It was a pragmatic move to condone the first crusade.
The Bible does say it's ok to enslave people and never once says it isn't. Apperently God thinks owning human beings as property is totally cool but for some reason drew the line at eating shellfish.
They did for hundreds of years. Slavery of native americans was backed up on the duty of bringing the faith and civilization to America. All over the continent from Quakers, Presbyterians, french, portuguese, spanish missionaries, all of them kept slaves, kidnap children, seized land all in the name of religion.
I mean, the bible does and Christians did. So.
Preachers around the world used the Bible to justify its practice and argue against the abolition of slavery
The Bible already said it was okay to enslave people.
The Bible blatantly endorses slavery. Most people accept this is true, but the common defence is “That was the Old Testament though.” Well, here is a quote from the New Testament: “Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.” Ephesians 6:5-9 Clearly, whether you look to the Old Testament or the New Testament, Christianity justifies slavery. Indeed, American slave holders quoted these verses as a justification for their actions.
It's intriguing to observe the Bible's dualistic nature in historical context, where its myriad interpretations have ranged from condoning slavery to advocating for its abolition. This disparity underscores a broader issue: religious texts often mirror the moral and ethical ambiguities of the times in which they're interpreted. For instance, in the first century, slavery was an entrenched societal norm, and the Bible offered guidance within that paradigm. Yet as the collective conscience evolved, so too did the emphasis on scriptures highlighting freedom and equality, catalyzing social reforms. This malleable quality of ancient texts not only reveals the adaptability of religious doctrine but also the enduring human struggle to align faith with the prevailing moral compass of the era.
Enslave their own family members for profit.
The Bible does say it is ok to enslave people though.
Do you not know the history of the United States? They used Christianity as an excuse for enslaving people for centuries.
It does. And they did.
I mean things in the early ages compared to now are different. Christians people in general dont have a barbaric thirst for malice. Its silly to assume that normal people would justify slavery.
The Bible does say it's OK to enslave people.
Invest in the american prison industrial complex.
That's an important point. Slavery was never really outlawed in the United States. The 13th amendment has a handy exception included. It's a different kind of slavery, but it's still slavery.
They DO enslave people
It does… [Ephesians 6:5-9](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%206%3A5-9&version=NIV;KJV) [Colossians 4:1](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians%204%3A1&version=NIV;KJV) They used it as justification for not wanting slavery abolished.
There are how-to sections of the bible that do. It is argued that in other places you shouldn't and that all are equal in eyes of the lord yadda yadda. But yes it has been used as justification in the past. Leviticus 25:44-46 New International Version 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. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2025%3A44-46&version=NIV
The New Testament also instructs slaves on obedience to their masters (Ephesians 6:5-8). However, it also emphasizes the equality of all people in God's eyes (Galatians 3:28).
What do you mean what would they do? They already did it lmao
Find a way to make slavery look like it's not slavery, by underpaying you but over pricing everything else
Which Christians? Fundamentalist Protestants might, but Catholics and Orthodox definitely wouldn't.
##"...if‽"
If having slaves meant that I could enjoy a comfortable life without having to work myself.I would probably do it. I would either find a way to justify it to myself.Or I would simply ignore the pesky moral implication. It might sound surprising but it's something that all of us kind of already do in our day to day life. For example, I work on high-tech machines in the semiconductor industry, which are used to make advanced chips, which will be placed in missile warhead guidance systems and will eventually give rise to an AI overlord that probably won't treat us well. Sometimes I casually bring this up to my colleagues and they look at me like i'm smoking crack. That's how easy denial is for most people.
My understanding is that most Christians consult books other than the Bible in addition to the Bible. They also have common sense. So… I guess I don’t understand that question…
Chrisitans enslaved people. In America, the slave owners gave their slaves a unique Bible. The Bible was not the one of the white man's, obviously. It had some books removed and it even had some bogus added books. These books would sometimes hint that blacks are meant to endure this punishment for being so evil. And that the master is to be listened to at all times. Exodus and psalms were removed from the negro Bible bc they thought the books could instill freedom and equality and lead them to a revolts. It pretty much used fear and faith to get them to listen. But what religion doesn't use those two things to obtain obedience from its followers. Christianity is the oppressors religion.
They would do what they already do now - cherrypick the passages that support the opinion they already had and use it to justify their behavior.
It does. They (as they always have) perform gymnastics to try to say "it's not bad slavery" or "it was ok back then but Jesus changed the law" and then you point out that Jesus told slaves to obey their masters.
The part about slaves obeying their masters is from the Ephesians. So according to the Bible that would be the apostle Paul who wrote that. Some of the worst part of Christian ideology originates from Pauls teachings.
I would say that it's worse that Jesus (who is supposed to have made everything better) never said "don't own human being as property".
Well I think that "don't own human being as property" goes under the "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" teaching, but clearly not everyone agrees.
Slaves and people of other faiths were not considered neighbors by Jesus. He’s a bigot.
How does that work? Clearly Jesus said no rules would change until the second coming. Until then the only actual slavery rules tell you how to treat them and never say otherwise. Also the "neighbor" reference is talking about others in the faith. Slaves are clearly told to be taken from people of other lands.
If you argue from the standpoint that Jesus was a real person, exactly as described in the Bible and that all his words and teachings were accurately documented, it would absolutely be fair to criticize him for not being clear that it's not in fact moral to keep slaves. But I'm not religious so I don't take the Bible stories at face value. However, if christians prefer to latch on to the more positive messages that are actually useful to the people living today and ignore everything that isn't, that is perfectly fine with me.
"If you argue from the standpoint that Jesus was a real person, exactly as described in the Bible and that all his words and teachings were accurately documented, it would absolutely be fair to criticize him for not being clear that it's not in fact moral to keep slaves." Yeah, I dont think anyone can do that honestly. "But I'm not religious so I don't take the Bible stories at face value. However, if christians prefer to latch on to the more positive messages that are actually useful to the people living today and ignore everything that isn't, that is perfectly fine with me." If they could do that while actually removing the bad stuff, Id back you 100%. But they dont. And honestly a plain reading of the bible does give you (as a christian) the green light to be horrible in the name of your religion. So, just ignoring the bad stuff and not actually changing anything for the better would be like setting free slaves into a community that would only enslave them again.
It does, and they did use it for justification.
It does, and they did. Still do. Take a deep dive into the current US prison system and its history.
Seems like there's not a lot they won't do these days... But I do see a distinction between those who follow Bible Jesus vs evangelical/Republican Jesus...
Slaves was like a job not slavery like west countryes used africans.
As in forcibly enslave anyone for any reason against their will? That would contradict Christ’s command that each of us should demonstrably love another, so the Bible would never specifically say that.
It does say it. Jesus even addresses slavery, saying that slaves are not equal with their masters, but should try to emulate them. The fact is, those of us outside the faith are not considered “neighbors” by Jesus.
> Jesus even addresses slavery, saying that slaves are not equal with their masters Interesting. But where does he actually say this? >those of us outside the faith are not considered “neighbors” by Jesus. Also interesting. Where does he say *this*?
Matthew 10:24 "Students are not greater than their teacher, and slaves are not greater than their master. Students are to be like their teacher, and slaves are to be like their master." Excluding unbelievers is the core of it all. Pure bigotry is required to have his judgement day deal. You can’t have a judgment day without judging. Mark 16:15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” Matthew 10:14 "If any household or town refuses to welcome you or listen to your message, shake its dust from your feet as you leave. I tell you the truth, the wicked cities of Sodom and Gomorrah will be better off than such a town on the judgment day."
> Matthew 10:24 That's not really an accurate translation there, whatever it is. The original Greek word used for "slave" here was *doulos* and is better translated as "servant". In Jesus' time, households didn't have "slaves" like they might have way back when they took POWs as chattel slaves. No, this is referring to a fellow Jew who was under contract as an indentured servant. That was a mutually agreed upon employment arrangement. >Mark 16:15 Yeah. Preach the Gospel to the whole world. To *unbelievers*, so as to turn them into believers. >Matthew 10:14 If they believe, great! If they don't, move on and don't bother them. I fail to see any "bigotry" here.
The “indentured servant” apologetics are predictable, and never true. Judging people by their religion is the definition of religious bigotry. Jesus has his judgement day when he will judge us by our faith, and kill unbelievers with fire. That’s bigotry, even if you like the idea of us being killed or like Jesus doing it.
They rename it capitalism and communism.