June 24, 2008
-
Slavery and The Bible
Dr. James Dobson, a conservative religious leader, has accused Barack Obama of “distorting” the Bible.
One of the references is to slavery. Barack Obama is accused by Dr. Dobson of saying the Bible condones slavery. Here is the link: Link
Here is the scripture in question:
“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 will
them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves
for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.” NIVDo you think the Bible condones slavery?
Comments (175)
not the new testement
I think that may be one that meant something else in the original version and got changed through interpretation….but I’m not really sure….
Seems like one of the more straightforward passages in the Old Testament.
-David
the old testiment says a lot of things which are no longer in practice… i hope those that are using the old testiment to argue their points are following ALL the rules laid out…
never condones it, but God used slavery for His purposes just like everything else.
@theatrestarr - Why aren’t parts of the OT practiced? Did God change his mind along the way?
Yes, of course, based on this and many other passages.
@huginn - times have changed…
Do you think the Bible condones slavery?
Americans of the pre-Civil War South thought so.
I think it was a different era. In the old testament it was alright to have a slave. Things have changed since.
I think it was written during (and aimed toward) a certain time and place. Not here or now.
Did the Bible excuse, overlook, or make allowances for slavery? Seems like it. I’m pretty sure it doesn’t condone present-day slavery, though.
Anyway, in the article, Dobson comes off like a crazy person. I was a bit surprised.
I think it completely condones slavery. I’m sure it can be argued that nowhere does it say that you should whip and starve and abuse your slaves, but referring to a human life as somebodys property is degrading, disgusting, and infuriating.
If there is a God I don’t think he/she would condone slavery, so I think that parts of the bible (at the very least) were invented by very morally inept, egotistical men out for personal gain and nothing more.
I mean…if somebody walked up to you and handed you pages of writing that was inspired by a voice that “spoke to them” wouldn’t you be wary?
I don’t think that it condones slavery now. During the time period in which the old testimate was written it was ok to have slaves.
it regulates it, slavery was universal at the time.
@kvdubs - I don’t know if I’m just reading into the comment wrong, but it sounds like you were saying that once upon a time it was okay for some people to have rights, and others to have none? Slavery was never okay. Just because it was written somewhere, doesn’t make it so.
One thing that I think many people forget is that there were many practices in the OT that Jesus himself did not condone, which is clearly communicated in the NT, and even in parts of the OT through the prophets. Take for example men taking multiple wives. God made it perfectly clear that this should not take place, even in the Ot in Genesis where He says a man shall leave his parents and be joined with his wife, not wives, and they shall become one, not multiples.
And you also have to take into consideration the intent of the OT. It is to show WHY Jesus needed to come, so it would make sense that the issue of slavery would come up in the bible, just like so many other issues that can be found in the bible that we deal with today. (Sorry, run on sentence).
But I’ll get off my soap box now. I can’t honestly make a conclusion on what Obama meant in his statement by that article. I would have to know what was the connotation behind the comment, and you just can’t get that from an article, but who knows. I guess I’ll just have to YouTube it, because God knows its made its way onto there by now…
under the Old Covenant, yes, but we’re not under the Old Covenant anymore, are we??? even Philemon is a letter with a heavy *wink, wink, nudge, nudge* at slave owners that if they believe all men to be created equal by God then they should seriously rethink their personal views about owning slaves.
but under the Old Covenant there were protections extended to slaves and repeated stern warnings about abuse and cruelty for which the Jews could be punished so it wasn’t the cruel slavery we saw in the South or indeed throughout world history of slave-ownership….
neither was slavery a racial thing- often slaves came from defeated nations when nations went to war and color of skin was not taken into account- whites were slaves to africans enslaved jews and jews enslaved palestinians and babylonians enslaved jews and so on and so forth
I’d say that the Bible does not condone slavery. If it did, then God would not have led the Israelites out of Egypt where they were slaves.
those who do not understand the scriptures will take bits and pieces and force them into contexts in which they do not belong. An common example is : “the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away.” If you do not understand the context surrounding the scripture there, you will interpret it as God gives and takes (life). It is important to understand fully the context of what you are reading before you attempt to committ the Bible in one direction or another.
And no, the Bible does not condone slavery. Obama grossly misinterpreted it. You have to understand to whom this scripture was written and also what time they lived in, where they lived, etc. You can’t just cherry pick a single scripture and attempt to pick it apart and say: “yep, ok, THIS is obviously what the entirety of the Bible is about.”
the bible condones a lot of bullshit.
Wow, so we are talking about the bible, slavery and the presidential race.
This is really interesting and will actually greatly impact our world, or on a smaller scale our country, or really, maybe those people down south who right now eat mac n cheese for dinner because gas is so expensive and the job is 30 miles away. It was meat or gas, and if you don’t work, you don’t eat so…
How about a big tall glass of “I dont give a fuck” and for anyone who was ready to give a sharp answer and argue? Here is another tall glass of “shut the fuck up”
I really feel for those people who eat mac and cheese because gas is so expensive. I want them to eat nourishing food. I don’t give a shit about this moot bullshit.
Sure does, along with murder, rape, theft, and a whole host of other things we’d consider immoral. Whee, the Bible!
I’m kind of curious about the arguments that everyone else will make here. Come on, theologians! (Not you, Dan, your readers.) This is YOUR arena! Time to prove your worth.
I’m not a big fan of the bible
I can’t really say much about it
It didn’t so much condone slavery as it did say, “Hey, if you’re a slave, suck it up and do your job. If you own a slave, don’t be a douche about it.”
paraphrasing, of course.
@huginn - Are you serious? Do you follow all of the 600 laws in Leviticus? Do you eat shellfish? Pork? Do you dress in clothes of blended fabric? Have you sold your daughter to get out of debt? Read Leviticus, the section known as the holiness code.
I don’t think God has changed his mind, I just think times have chnaged and we don’t need to be saved from ourselves in the ways that people of Old Testament times did.
Michael
@heyyoulady - God’s chosen people were speical. They themselves can keep slaves, but just not of each other.
I don’t think the Bible condones slavery as an institution, but the message of Jesus has implications for everybody – regardless of position.
I think James Dobson is way off base in his criticism. I think he’s all but lost his mind. There is quite a bubble in Colorado Springs.
Yeah, I think slavery was certainly condoned, if not encouraged. But thousands of years have passed, and all things must be reevaluated with time.
@another_rebel_without_a_cause - Good way to put it,
& it doesn’t really condone slavery, because it was in the old testament. People take the old testament out of context all of the time, but they have to realize the new testament overrules it.
@ETCACTOR - Are you serious? Do you follow all of the 600 laws in Leviticus?…
Yes, I am serious. I don’t beleive in the existance of God or any other supernatural entities.
I don’t think God has changed his mind, I just think times have chnaged and we don’t need to be saved from ourselves in the ways that people of Old Testament times did.
I think an underlying precept of Christianity is the infalliblity of God and that of the Bible. I buy the idea of conditional commandments, for instance, the rules for salvation would definately change with the comming of the Messiah.
However, I don’t see how God’s slavery commandment is conditional. How can it be conditional, and why would God issue such a conditional statement?
We recoil at the idea of slavery because it’s radically incompatable with modern-day mores and morality. Though, our feeling towards it has little to do with what the Bible actually says. My resolution to all the bad things in the OT is simply that God has never existed.
Clearly.
@I_Am_Twilight - My thoughts exactly!
I think that the Bible was used to condone slavery, but in a short term way. Someone commented that the people of the pre-civil war south condoned slavery. What about the indentured servants of the early days of the United States? They were primarily in the north. My point being, Slavery, in all its forms, has been around since the beginning of time. Every society has had some form of slavery at one point in their history. Should we be proud of it? No, but we must acknowledge that it existed.
Michael
The treatment of slaves was regulated in ancient Israel - they were to be treated humanely. But given the tendencies of humans to exploit power it’s likely that the “rules” were violated.
@SuperEvilPopTart64 - I was sort of worried I was alone on it.
@lizheartshakespeare - One thing that I think many people forget is that there were many practices in the OT that Jesus himself did not condone, which is clearly communicated in the NT, and even in parts of the OT through the prophets….
But isn’t Jesus God? Why would he disagree with his own writing?
@huginn - You make a valid point. I don’t agree with all of the Bible, simply brcause it’s not all there. It’s been edited and translated so many times that I think many of the meanings have been changed.
Michael
does anyone who answered the question know what slavery was like back then? I’m just wondering. I don’t honestly know. I just feel like we have the lens of American history painting our view of what slavery was.
I don’t think it condones or prohibits slavery. It was a social norm at the time and I believe the moral is to treat everyone fairly, including slaves, but just because it mentions slaves does not inherently mean it condones or prohibits slavery.
Ephesians 6: 5-9
5Slaves, obey your master with respect and fear…7Serve whole heartedly…
9And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.
@huginn - Agreed.
Did God write and do a bunch of fucked up shit so he could one day prove how amazing he is and change these things?
Kind of like raising gas prices outrageously and then six or seven months down the road lowering the prices thirty or forty since and people end up thinking you’re a godsend. O.o But your still getting screwed up the ass they just make it hurt a little less.
@huginn - Would you please read the whole post before commenting?
@Strong_Protector - One thing that history shows without argument is that there has been a long pattern of people abusing power, and so I don’t think in any way shape or form slavery could have ever worked in a healthy or gainful way for everybody. I don’t care how long ago it was, I think there would have been people making slavery just as awful as it is.
To say that “the Bible” either condones or doesn’t condone slavery is to assume that there’s a unitary viewpoint throughout the work, which there isn’t. You can certainly find support for slavery if you look hard enough, but then, if you look hard enough and with the right perceptual filters, you can find Bible passages to condone or condemn just about anything on the planet.
@PreciousOnyx - I agree, plus there seems to have been a finer line between slaves and employees back then. Plus they had Jubilee or something every 50 or 75 years.
i think it is irrelevant,,, did breir rabbit own slaves? or condone slavery? the question is of the same caliber,,,, id like to have a couple myself,,,, hot ones,,,, that would be nice…..
ears of course dont qualify,,,, dont believe id even bid for him.
Yes, it does.
I love how Dobson basically says about that, “The Old Testament and the New Testament cannot be compared.”
Eh, sure
God expected us to own slaves at that time, but the Bible was written at a time when that was socially acceptable, if not a standard or a norm. We now deem that to be an atrocity to human life, and so this expectation is thus outdated. It’s not discrediting the bible or calling Christians approvers of slavery- which is where the Reverend is misunderstanding, I think- it’s merely a statement of the truth.
God was all about punishing people in the Old Testament. If he saw slave owners, and told them how to own their slaves, without punishment, does that not mean he condoned it at that time?
@ETCACTOR - I don’t agree with all of the Bible, simply brcause it’s not all there. It’s been edited and translated so many times that I think many of the meanings have been changed.
People take the Bible very seriously. So beyond a certain point in its history, I have no dobut that the greatest of care were taken in its translation and perservance.
If I were Christian, I suppose my concern would be in the earliest stage of the drafting of the New Testament. Were the acumen of early Church officials sharp enough to fully differenitate between valid inspired text and fakes?
And in the Old Testament, were human vessels fully sufficient to express the meanings and intents of God? As a test case, I imagined God trying to communicate modern Astrophysics to our 2,000 B.C. Jew. Beyond naturally straight-foward ideas, it’s a pretty impossible task.
Dobson slamming a Democrat? Imagine that.
I think lizheartshakespeare has a good point.
And Christianity is so diverse. You can’t satisfy everyone. Can’t we all just get along?
@la_faerie_joyeuse -
<table border=”0″ cellpadding=”0″ cellspacing=”0″ width=”625″><tbody><tr><td width=”332″> CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS
& RESEARCH MINISTRY
<td width=”123″>www.carm.org
<td height=”18″ width=”180″>
HOME PAGE
<table width=”635″>
<tbody><tr>
<td>
Why is slavery permitted in the Bible?
Slavery was permitted in
the Bible because of sin in the world. It existed before the Jews
were formed as a nation and it existed after Israel was conquered.
God allows many things to happen in the world such as storms, famine,
murder, etc. Slavery, like divorce, is not preferred by God.
Instead, it is allowed. Where many nations treated their slaves
very badly, the Bible gave many rights and privileges to slaves.
So, even though it isn’t the best way to deal with people, because God
has allowed man freedom, slavery then exists. God instructed the
Israelites to treat them properly.
<li>The Bible acknowledged the slave’s
status as the property of the master (Ex. 21:23; Lev. 25:46), <li>The Bible restricted the master’s
power over the slave.
Ex. 21:20). <li>The slave was a member of the
master’s household (Lev. 22:11) <li>The slave was required to rest on
the Sabbath (Exodus 20:10; Deut. 5:14) <li>The slave was required and to
participate in religious observances (Gen. 17:13;
Exodus 12:44; Lev. 22:11).<li>The Bible prohibited extradition
of slaves and granted them asylum (Deut.
23:16-17). <li>The servitude of a Hebrew
debt-slave was limited to six years (Ex. 21:2;
Deut. 15:12).<li>When a slave was freed, he was to
receive gifts that enabled him to survive economically (Deut. 15:14)
The reality of
slavery cannot be denied. Slaves were “slave labor played a minor
economic role in the ancient Near East, for privately owned slaves
functioned more as domestic servants than as an agricultural or
industrial labor force.”1
_______________
1. Achtemeier, Paul J., Th.D., Harper’s Bible
Dictionary, (San Francisco: Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc.) 1985.
Examples of weak arguments to try justify why the Bible, OT or NT, did not speak out against the practice of slavery:
-It was a different time, a different place (aka, cultural relativism, which begins a slippery slope for believers wanting to believe that the Bible offers an objective moral code).
-At least the NT talks about treating your slave kindly (this still provides the possiblity of Christianity and slavery being compatible, which is an easier arguement to make from a scriptural aspect than that of Christianity and slavery being completely incompatible).
One possible arguement that may have some weight to it:
-Paul does not speak out against slavery since he (and other early christians) are under the impression that Christ will be returning very soon. Thus, he has no time to change an ingrained cultural practice before the second coming, but he can tame it some.
Also in the NT’s defense there are multiple passages that state how all humans, slave or not, are equal spiritually (though spiritually and physically are two different concepts).
Still is curious nothing is recording about Jesus speaking out against slavery though. It’s not like the idea that slavery was possibly immoral/unethical or at least unnatural was a completely new concept. This idea was being explored by the greeks as early as around 400 BC. Though it is important to note while there was a sophistic view along these lines around this time, these arguments were only being applied to fellow greek slaves and there is not much evidence these arguments reached a level of advocating for the abolition of slaves since slavery was such an integral aspect of the functioning greek society.
@lizheartshakespeare - Would you please read the whole post before commenting?
Would you not be persumptuous?
I just reread it for the fourth and fifth time, and I stand by my point. If God really disagreed with slavery early on, even it as a means to an end in primitive society, he woudl have railed against it in the OT.
Since you only gave us a few verses and none showed up in the link, I’d have know exactly what you are referring to. I’d be most happy to explain, if only the verse and chapter, and book are given.
Becker
Wow, there was a major word in my NASB that wasn’t in the NIV.
“PAGAN nations around you.”
That’s the difference. God’s chosen people. Back then, the Israelites were (sometimes) followers of God. However, all the other nations were evil, immoral, and going against God’s will. Of course, there were exceptions like Rahab and Ruth who were grafted into the Israelites, but not often.
They took those pagans as slaves because that was part of God’s punishment to the slaves.
Currently God doesn’t condone slavery because 1) Now anyone can come to God without being a Jew – there are no “pagan” nations, per se, and 2) God hasn’t changed, but He has changed us. In other words, He’ll do His own punishment, He doesn’t need us (or rather, the Jews) taking slaves.
@loser011 - Leviticus 25:44-46
I had to look up a few words on the NIV part of Biblegateway.com since I don’t have an NIV concordance.
@Liike28 - People like to argue too much to just get along. ^.^ Sometimes a good argument can get rid of tension and stress. Unfortunately there are people who get too worked up and even more stressed over these things. I guess if everybody came to terms with knowing that everybody getting along doesn’t mean everybody believes and thinks the same, it means everybody understands that we don’t all think and believe the same, and thats okay. It’d be a little scary otherwise.
@huginn - I think she assumed it because you didn’t copy and paste her whole comment when you were replying. But we all know what they say about assuming.
@loser011 - http://bible.cc/leviticus/25-44.htm
@I_Am_Twilight - Oh. Hmmm. I see how her charge of an incomplete reading comes naturally. Thanks for the explaination.
@huginn - I think they still are. It’s called gay bashing.
@huginn - RIGHT!? Christianity would be better if the stuck to only New Testament. As it is, they claim it’s simply there for historical reference but use it to justify anything they feel like at the drop of a hat.
@musterion99 -
“The reality of slavery cannot be denied. Slaves were ‘slave labor played a minor
economic role in the ancient Near East, for privately owned slaves
functioned more as domestic servants than as an agricultural or
industrial labor force.’”
If one is to involve the NT in the conversation that understanding of slavery does not apply. The Greeks and Romans effectively made slaves a very important aspect of the labor force, essentially their own working class.
In regards to my previous post, to be a little more specific- Stoic thought predated and is very similar to early christian views on slavery; all men have a spark of divine fire, and no matter man’s external circumstances, it will not prevent a person from seeking to attain inner-self mastery. Thus while Stoics did not necessarily approve of slavery, they did not speak out against it; they merely trivialized the issue, since the external circumstances should not be one’s focus in life.
@musterion99 - Why, thank you.
In the old testament it was… I dont think it was in the new though
NO! It merely gives instructions for how to treat slaves, since that was a part of everyday life in the Roman empire! St. Paul wasn’t trying to go against the government or be a revolutionary…he was just stating spiritual directions for how to behave in the situation!
What about this arugment:
If it were evident from the NT that slavery was wrong, and immoral in the eyes of God, African slave trade would never have ballooned. England, after all, was a Christian nation. So too was France. So too was the United States of America.
didnt jesus say something along the lines of “screw the old laws, obey my word, love one another”
it may be slightly different wording though
No. Also, criticism of Obama from the conservative religious is to be expected. It is what they do. They are too busy looking for the mote in others’ eyes and don’t see the log in their own.
No, it’s stating ethics (as another rebel noted) you don’t get to choose what life you’re born into so you must live it to the fullest and fulfill your duties in that role you play. And if you role is master to slaves, then you must treat them well/ethically because it is the ‘moral’ thing to do plus you will get the best results with well fed and well treated slaves, rather than beaten and starved ones. But of, course, as everyone knows this practice is no longer acceptable and not seen in the same light as it was then, that’s just the way the world worked in that time.
And just because it may ‘appear’ that the Bible condones certain actions/behaviors doesn’t mean it should be completed disregarded. I believe in a few of the stories adn others I view as tales with a good lesson. It’s also an interesting history book when it comes to how life was in those times (including how slavery, women, etc was viewed) though these acts may not be what we would consider okay today, it still happened so why ignore it and call the Bible bull crap? It’s like any other historical text with true and mythological stories…with 10 pretty good ideas to live by.
The Bible condones anything you want it to. It’s all a matter of how you interpret it.
Haha! I like to use this little fact to point out to Christians how they are creating their own morality, and evolving it beyond the meager limitations of the Bible. They really hate that. I don’t know why – I think it’s something they should be proud of!
not the new testament. the old testament is full of things that jesus don’t approve of.
@albillar666 - didnt jesus say something along the lines of “screw the old laws, obey my word, love one another”
it may be slightly different wording though
Thank you, thank you, thank you!!! I couldn’t have said it better myself (though I do believe Jesus did).
I think anyone who says otherwise is, at best, fooling themselves, and at worst, criminally insane.
The Bible is a historical document. Its morality mirrors that of the culture which produced it. Regardless of whether you believe it is divinely inspired, it was written by the hands of men. A black/white view of anything simply doesn’t survive analysis in a complex world.
erm, yes.
It was written by men who benefitted from slavery.
ya dig?
@lizheartshakespeare -
Good answer! I agree.
@la_faerie_joyeuse - I don’t know if you’re being sarcastic or not, but you’re welcome.
No, the Bible doesn’t condone slavery.
The context of slavery in the Old Testament times is extremely different from how we understand the term slavery (Civil War era). The Bible regulates slavery because at the time it was a universal fact of life, but that is not the same as condoning it.
Scripture is very specific about treating your slaves well and what they were entitled to. They could do business, own property, lend and borrow money, participate in courts, become engaged and married. They could work off their contracts and free themselves. This kind of slavery cannot be equated to that of the more modern slavery that we are familiar with. Those slaves were treated inhumanely, and the Bible most certainly does not condone that.
@firetyger - …The Bible regulates slavery because at the time it was a universal fact of life, but that is not the same as condoning it…
It didn’t condem it either. Silence means consent.
People once used the Bible to justify slavery in the United States.
It does not seem to work well today.
Now there are other groups people like to oppress with Biblical quotation.
It wont work well tomorrow.
i read the article before seeing your site. obama’s stupid. he’s the one who isn’t reading the bible. sure he read the start/old testament. that’s where the pentateuch came from; the one for the jews. the bible doesn’t condone slavery unless you’re stuck in the old testament. stupid stupid obama. X P he could’ve at least read an abridged version of the thing before opening his mouth and sticking his foot in it.
A.
It sounds like it.
of course it did. Dobson is an idiot…
“Dr.” Dobson is an idiot. I agree that the bible does condone a lot of bullshit.
does it really matter? people will read whatever they want into the bible to fit what they want it to say. it’s fun reading all of the excuses as to why this might not be “technically” the word of god.
some things never change, but most things do. you can’t base all of your morals on this one 2,000 year old text. this is yet another example of this.
Yes, it does. Referencing an earlier post, if the Bible is inspired by God, than it will also reference the times it was written. If the Bible were written today, I’m sure the writers would take a much harsher stance against slavery.
In the Old Testament, slavery was often identured servanthood. If you had a debt to pay and couldn’t pay it (or couldn’t make restitution, when you had stolen something), then you served that person for a time. There’s no exuse for enslaving an entire race of people or keeping slaves for an indefintite period of time. Weren’t slaves freed every 7 years? I can’t remember the name of the festival or whatever, but all debts were exonnerated every 7 years too.
@I_Am_Twilight - no i’m saying during the old testament it was a fact of life. some people were slaves and others were not.
I don’t believe that the Bible does!
According to Wiki… The Southern Baptist Convention did not officially renounce using the Bible as a justification for slavery and white supremacy until June 20, 1995 when they issued a formal “Declaration of Repentance.”
The Southern Baptists split with Baptists in the North over this issue. So what would have Dobson (who I think is a Southern Baptist) said on June 19th 1995? Would he have towed the line of the largest denomination in the United States?
The bible states that when the “new” has come the old shall be done away with. This is from the Old Testament and doesn’t apply now. It’s the age old occurance of people using the scripture to their advantage. This is one or two versus, what about the rest of the passage? What was God really trying to teach us with this?
The Bible is old, antiquated and horrible out of touch with the modern world. It’d be like using Encyclopedias from the early 1950s to teach History in college.
I get the sense that this passage states pretty clearly that the institution of slavery is allowed. But the whole idea of moral inferiority is not really there.
So the old idea of love is still there.
Rather hypocritical, I feel.
It sure sounds like it.
@StrongLetterI - really? Like what?
Some observations:
1. Slavery, as represented by the Israelites in Egypt, was always presented as cruel and inhumane
2. Slavery was a cultural institution in the Roman Empire at the time of the New Testament
3. Jesus never criticized the Roman culture, his harshest criticism was directed at the Jewish leaders
4. Jesus message of love and reconciliation ie. the Beatitudes, Luke 6:20-49 could never be construed to condone slavery.
5. It is a fact that slave holding was condemned by Christians in the North and the war against the South was strongly supported by Christians in the North ie. the Underground Railroad. also Amazing Grace was written by John Newton a converted British slave trader.
6. It is true that the Bible can be used by ignorant or evil people to condone or justify all kinds of stupid and evil things.
7. The message of Jesus is consistent and powerful – (Matthew 22:37-40) there are two all important commandments – paraphrased
“Love God with all your heart and soul and love your neighbor as yourself.”
@la_faerie_joyeuse -Really? The Bible condones murder, rape and theft?
Yeah, what another_rebel_without_a_cause said.
“It didn’t so much condone slavery as it did say, ‘Hey, if you’re a slave, suck it up and do your job. If you own a slave, don’t be a douche about it.’”
Dan – it’s a good thing I don’t follow the warnings to anything….seriously, some of them are just stupid.
.
@Strong_Protector - great point! There was nothing even remotely similar to American slavery during biblical times.
people condemn the bible because they don’t understand it’s not to be read word-to-word, but APPLIED to the context of modern days.
@albillar666 - Absolutely Jesus dealt with people who were obsessed with following the letter of the law, Jesus told them salvation was not about obeying a the “rules” because no one could live a perfect life.
@huginn - Thats just Christians. The so-called “old testament” is in full effect still with us Jews.
but to answer the question.. Christians interpret the books of the Torah, et al, however it best suits them.
After reading through all these responses, I feel a little like Paul rebuking Elymas, “Will you never stop perverting the right ways of the Lord?”
The bible is nothing more than the writings of primitive men. They had slaves, so it shows god sanctioning slavery. Man creates his gods, not the other way around. It’s the simplest and most logical explanation. Thanks, Occam.
i cannot remember the place, but in one place (old testament) it says the punnishment for having slaves is death.
The various commandments to people in the Bible are often for a specific time and place. Many times God says, do this and the people say NO! so then God says, well ok, then try this.
Perhaps this was one of those moments. I mean, if your kids are on their own and they say NO what do you do? amazing how faithful God has been…he keeps re-strategizing.
Not necessarily. It was a fact that people had slaves during the times that the Bible was written. The Bible merely instructs how to treat those slaves. There are also verses about how slaves should act and we can still apply those verses to our daily lives even without having slavery around.
People often forget the time and the culture when the Bible was written. At that time, sure you could carry off slaves as plunder! (Though the Bible also says to treat slaves fairly). But at this time, slavery is not acceptable, and we are all equal in Christ. I don’t think he would want us carrying off one another as slaves.
@musterion99 - No sarcasm at all. I was sincerely thanking you.
@huginn - Huginn….I am no religious scholar but I *think* the generally accepted reason why the OT is no longer in practice by Christians (it is for the most part by Judaism still practiced) is because when Christ came – He was seen as the “new” covenant between God and man. And that by the Law (in the OT) alone, man could not be righteous or saved – thus the laws of the OT faded away for Christians because Christ established a new belief.
What is there to interpret? There was slavery at the time, and it’s regulating it. The passage is the most straightforward thing I’ve ever seen quoted out of the bible.
@another_rebel_without_a_cause - Well paraphrased.
And to be honest, I can’t stand Biblical discussion–there’s so much there that allegedly clashes with other parts of it and too much overinterpreting of the words of random men for it to make any sense in the end.
If you rely on God so much, why don’t you ask HIM what is right rather than consulting the ramblings of old guys?
No, it doesn’t. That verse was dealt with what was part of culture back then. A “slave” back then was more of a servant. People are getting hung up on the word because the modern connotations associated with teh word.
Yes, in Leviticus
@huginn - not really answering the question is it, unless you are a pre-civil war american.
condone, allow, limit, whatever. some could use the same logic about divorce, but Jesus said that God allowed divorce and dictated it’s terms because of the hardness of peoples hearts to limit it not to free them up for it.
now, i am a bit rusty on my levitical law, but if i remember correctly, slavery was a debt issue, as well as a “spoils of war” issue, but not a racial issue. meaning, regardless of any condoning of “slavery”, what happened in america would have been condemned, it wasnt “biblical slavery”. not to mention that under the terms of “biblical slavery” every seven years you had to release any debted slaves(indentured servetude anyone?) unless they, by their own will chose to stay.
im wondering, how that all will play out in the future. in these economic times, if you look at it disregarding race and only looking at the economic factors. another thing is, when we think of slaves we think chains and plantations. slaves in that day were for much more than manual labor and (if we look at the story of joseph) we see that some even held quite a bit of authority over their masters property. just like coal companies back in the day were a form of slavery, “you owe the company money so keep going down.” are we not headed toward this kind of slavery again in our own economy?
Hmmm. You can treat the other people however you like, just not your fellow countrymen. And here I thought God loved everyone.
i think it was just something naturally done back in the day. also they weren’t allowed to treat slaves as they were treated back in civil war days. that was different.
If Obama is wrong for his comment then ppl are going to have to look at the premise of why slavery even existed. The church and early AMericans used the Bible as a reason to first own slaves (To convert the heathens) then kept slaves because they didn’t want to let go their workforce.
I find it interesting that there are parts of the Old Testament that modern day Christians still consider valid and others (like this one) that no longer apply. I’m not sure what to make of that.
Grr to Dr. Dobson; I read through Obama’s speech & it was quite insightful. He’s so silly.
And I’m going to go with trunthepage – slavery was universal, and the Bible regulated it. Since I go with the Bible being written by men, generally under inspiration, you’ve got to take in the time in which it was written when you try to understand how it matters now.
@H_loves_C - That’s a simple explanation, but it leaves a lot of unexplained details out there. There’s a lot of history to the development of Judaism that doesn’t quite fit with that…
Not wanting to start a Xanga throwdown; just wanting to discuss the use of Occam’s Razor.
Absolutely.
Absolutely, along with a lot of other vile and evil things.
People often confuse “description” with “prescription.” The Bible was written during a time when slavery was accepted as part of society; the Bible argues for fair treatment of slaves, not for the keeping of slaves, as such. Southern slaveholders in the US turned the Bible into a pro-slavery document in the early 1800s. (Read Uncle Tom’s Cabin, and you get the idea of some of the arguments–rebutted by the author, of course.)
Dr. James Dobson, on the other hand, condones slavery, or something darn close to it, with his pronouncements about the role of women in the family, in the church, and in society. He would have women become 2nd-class citizens, because he cannot comprehend that God made women equal to men. (Dobson has demonstrated a lifelong inability to read and comprehend the Bible accurately, and I wonder why anyone bothers to listen to his ignorant ravings at this point.)
Slavery in the Bible was quite different from the slavery practiced in Europe or the U.S. Slaves were treated like part of the family (similar to being a child without the rights of an heir). Does the Bible condone slavery? Yes. However, God gives many many MANY rules regarding the treatment of slaves. If you look at them, He makes many provisions for their well-being.
I guess God changed his mind. Which makes him fallible. Which means he’s not God after all? Either that or the Bible is written by ordinary men.
Obviously.
@wearywalden - “great point! There was nothing even remotely similar to American slavery during biblical times.”
@ionekoa - “but if i remember correctly, slavery was a
debt issue, as well as a “spoils of war” issue, but not a racial
issue. meaning, regardless of any condoning of “slavery”, what happened
in america would have been condemned, it wasnt “biblical slavery”.”
Really guys? Debt-slavery was certainly a form of slavery at the time, but was not anywhere the most prominent form. Most evidence points to war and international trade as being two of the greatest means of slaves being acquired. And while the status of a slave could very greatly, to generalize a slave’s life as not too bad, in my opinion, would be to ignore how history as recorded by authors of those times. Excessive punishment and lack of dignity seem to be consistent descriptors of how a slave lived his life, no matter the time period, for the majority of slaves.
And the Israelites, like most ethnic groups in ancient times, view slavery among themselves and slavery among foreigners as two different issues. Leviticus 25:44-46 would be talking about foreign born slaves. While fellow jewish slaves where released every 7 years, this did not apply to foreign born slaves (to my knowledge based on what I have read so far, if this is wrong someone please correct this). Beating a slave was also an acceptable practice, as long as one did not beat a slave to death, since it was your property- Exo 21:20-21.
As for @ionekoa- “what happened
in america would have been condemned, it wasnt “biblical slavery”.”
How is one nation conquering another, and taking their people as slaves to be used at home and sold to other nations, as was done in ancient times, that much different from western europeans coming into Africa, colonizing areas (aka conquering them), and taking back slaves to use at home and sell abroad. While a way of justifying slavery in modern times was stating that blacks weren’t not equal to whites, in the ancient times each group of people usually viewed every other group as not equal to their own, so yes ethnicity played a role in ancient slavery as well.
@Thomas - “Slavery in the Bible was quite different
from the slavery practiced in Europe or the U.S. Slaves were treated
like part of the family (similar to being a child without the rights of
an heir).”
I’m a little confused after reading so many of these comments that rely on the arguement that biblical slavery was actually not too shabby. I’m no historian, but I at least have a medicore understanding of a historical issue before I choose to comment on it. And any research that lasts over 5 minutes will show that the description of the slave quoted above would be considered in the vast minority of ancient slaves. It could possibly even apply more accurate to modern slavery then ancient slavery, since there were cases of slaves being treated well in modern times as well (and simple math would imply that if you take a few feel good stories out of a slave population that makes up anywhere from 20-30% of a society, to a percentage that is far less, and you will have more feel good stories from the larger pool). Though I really am not knowledgeable enough in modern and ancient slavery to try and make an arguement for which one was, on the whole, harsher. That still does not change the fact that the majority of slaves from both modern and ancient slavery led lives not to be desired.
The Old Testament is an account of the history of God’s people, namely the Isrealites, and thier kings, their battles, everything. So this passage talks about a basic fact of that time period.
However, that doesn’t make what either party said right, since they are obviously arguing about interpretation and who’s ‘right’.
Too bad.
“Folks haven’t been reading their Bibles,” Obama said.
too true.
@GodsGirl62 - Look, I don’t want to get into a discussion of this sort. I have too many things on my plate (read my entry for today to get an idea). Plus, I have had many discussions about this with believers. Bottom line: It does make a lot more sense to go with the explanation that requires the least assumptions and fewer entities. The bible lacks, as far as I could tell, any trace of supernatural intervention. I once posted a challenge to believers, asking them to show me at least one passage in the bible that would’ve been impossible for any human to write in the ancient Near East. Something that HAD TO be written by a god, and not by mere humans. I got close to a 100 comments, and no one could really come up with anything. Here’s the link, in case you’re interested:
http://www.xanga.com/H_loves_C/631514185/question-for-apologists.html
So, thanks, but no thanks.
These are the passages that I think were written by men, not by God.
So yes, the Bible condones slavery. Yes, some Christians even condone Slavery.
Does God?
I don’t think so.
@huginn - His actions when the Hebrews were enslaved in Egypt merely because of their race does show that God condemns racial slavery.
@firetyger - No, it doesn’t.
All that this demonstrates is the assymetry between in-group morality and out-group morality. The rules governing moral interaction amongst the ancient Jews were very different with that between Jews and external groups.
In the Old Testament, the killing of a Godless heathen is very different from a murder of a fellow Hebrew.
God gives his chosen people special preference.
@whataboutbahb - I do not think any kind of slavery is a good thing. I just thought it was important to point out that we view slavery through the lens of American slavery, one the most inhumane enterprises humans have engaged in. As you have well pointed out slavery back then was awful but it was not the same as American slavery.
@la_faerie_joyeuse - Ok, cool. I wasn’t sure because I know you’re not a Christian.
@GlasgowKiss - And to be honest, I can’t stand Biblical discussion.
Then quit coming here and discussing it or reading blogs where it is discussed.
no it doesnt. yes I will agree that you will find “slavery” as a subject in the Bible only becasue in the time that the Bible was being written it was a pressing issue it was their culture and it was the time they lived in… so no it doesnt condone slavery but that doesnt mean that the scriptures are useles either it just means that you have to allow God to show you what he means
@ghosthouse - well I would like to know what do you think the role of a women is I mean in biblical terms. Do you think that the Bible says that women have the same roles as men do? I mean as far as a family and relationships goes. Just wondering.
Of course not, but it just shows how ridiculous Barack Hussein Obama is in his thinking. Yet, you want to vote for this guy. What’s up with that?
@whataboutbahb - of course, we overlook the fact that we are talking with isreal not merely about race, but nation. one could convert and “become a jew” and join the fold. no one said being a slave in those times was “a good life” or anything like it. the point is, the american rendition of slavery, even if slavery was condoned in the Bible, was nothing like the slavery that was condoned. one was bad, the other worse.
I don’t necessarily think it “condones” it. But it doesn’t really say that there’s anything wrong with it either.
And it’s not possible to “distort” the bible. Every religion that uses the bible has it’s own interpretation of it. as do individual people.
Yes. When I went to catholic school, they actually told us that thats what that specific phrase in the bible even meant; of course we were told slavery wasn’t right afterwards. But thats beyond the point, i mean isn’t the bible supposed to be infallible?
hmmm. i sense lies.
@wearywalden -
@ionekoa -
How really was american slavery much worse then back in ancient times? Imagine if after WWII, the united states took thousand of Japanese as slaves, since they lost the war. Costly war reparations on Germany were a big part of what led to WWII, imagine how much more pissed and easy to convince the german public to stand behind Hitler if a portion of the german population had been taken as slaves to France, Great Britain, ect after WWI?
I really don’t understand how conquering a nation and then taking their people as slaves is so much better then colonizing a nation and then taking their people as slaves. It’s essentially the same concept, except colonization has less initial bloodshed usually (since Europeans had such a weapons advantage).
passages taken out of cultural context of the old testament…a far too common error of the Christian community as well as people that don’t really even study the bible..
read the NT and you’ll get a better perspective.
The Bible was written by men who claimed to have messages from a higher power, but really those messages were from their own greed. so yes, i do think the bible condones slavery, b/c most likely it was written by men who had slaves
Slavery was a widely accepted practice in the Middle East even before the Israelites arrived. But it was their religion under the dictates of God that regulated the humane treatment of and the release of some of the slaves during the Year of Jubilee.
Again, slavery was prevalent in Jesus’ time–primarily of indigents working to pay debts–but He did not address its abolition; instead, he chose to address how Christian masters are to treat their slaves and vice versa.
God also was against divorce from the very beginning, but allowed it in Judaism due to the hardness of the human heart.
God can be against something in His prevailing will judicially, but permissively allow it in human history due to the hardness of our hearts.
Through the years, however, He faithfully sends His Law, his Prophets, and even His Son to tell us a better way to live. It is we, then–give the gift of free will–who make the choices to free or enslave.
Every day we still choose to enslave others in our mind in bitter chains of unforgiveness.
The smaller, vulnerable fetus becomes a slave to the larger and empowered mother’s choices; young people prefer to become slaves to the state rather than to personal initiative, and on and on.
Let’s quite picking on slavery in the Bible and look within our own heart. Whom do we empower to fail or succeed?
The time era where the original man who wrote the bible thinks it’s ok to have slavery. Now, culture have change so the bible reflect those believes.
The Bible doesn’t condone slavery, anymore than it condones divorce. God allowed divorce because of the hardness of the people’s hearts. But he also clearly stated that he HATED divorce.
As for slavery… wow, another_rebel_without_a_cause really hit the nail on the head.
@whataboutbahb - first off, the wwII reference is completely irrelevant. not just hypothetical but has nothing at all to do with the subject. the question is what did slavery thousands of years ago have better than slavery a hundred and fifty years ago(give or take a century.) the fact is, regardless of the numbers who attained it, regardless of how many achieved it. advancement and education within the house was available to slaves thousands of years ago. in colonial america, black slaves were not allowed to so much as learn to read, regardless of if they were field hands or house slaves. the highest level of slavery in america was still at best equivalant to the lowest thousands of years ago. going so far as, i said before, to give a slave the authority of the house, meaning if the house of timmy has dealings with someone, a slave, having been given the authority to speak for that house, can order around free men. and, though it is dependant on the TYPE of slavery(mostly debt) a slave could choose freedom or to remain in the house for life.(look up “bondservant”). that choice was never given in america. the fact is, again, no one is saying slavery then was good, but rather that it isnt the same thing. if you cant deal with that, i dont know what to tell you, you’re beating a dead horse for nothing, and making an argument where there is none.
I think that back in that day, the word “slave” was like today’s word “employee.” People in those days worked as slaves for whoever, and received benefits other than money from their owners. Things like a place to live, food to eat, and protection (in some cases, and in different ways). Slavery as we remember it today is nothing like the kind of slavery written about in the Bible.
Yeah, apparently, according to that passage.
@ionekoa - ” regardless of how many achieved it. advancement and education within the house was available to slaves thousands of years ago.”
I continue to argue, since you seem to be under the impression that the previous statement you made is absolutely true. It is not. Advancement and education was not available to a large amount of slaves in ancient times. It certainly was to some, and freedom was also attained by others. There were freedmen, but they were a significant minority, though Rome did start to become more liberal with its allowing freedom to be granted to slaves in the first and second century AD in the Imperial age. And while house slaves did enjoy a better place in society then slaves in the US, there were still plenty of slaves doing backbreaking agricultural work or working in the galleys of ships or worse.
As for some of the instances where there existed the possibility for advancement, the circumstances of doing so would be considered by most more barbaric then the agricultural work done by the slaves in the United States (i.e. gladiators).
And there were slaves in the United States and Great Britain that were able to earn their freedom, as well as others freed by their others.
Here are some links for just surface level reading into the issue:
Slavery in Ancient Times
Slavery in the US
Book Review for a book that makes some interesting claims about US slavery.
Please note I am not trying to say that slavery in the US wasn’t disgusting. It was. But so was slavery in Ancient times. There are categories of slaves in ancient times that had it much better off then african american slaves, but there are also plenty that had it worse. Slavery in either time (though an arguement can be made it was not so bad for the more powerful house slaves in greek and roman times, and was actually a more desirable position in life then some) should not be condoned.
Some last few points:
You said:
“black slaves were not allowed to so much as learn to read, regardless of if they were field hands or house slaves.”
True, at one point in time there were laws that made it illegal for slaves to be taught to read. That did not prevent this from happening though (easiest example to site: Fredrick Douglas).
You said:
” the highest level of slavery in america was still at best equivalant to the lowest thousands of years ago.”
Would you rather be a gladiator with a very short life span, put to death because either another slave of your master or your master did something wrong, or work in a galley of a ship your whole life (however short it is), rather then work in a field? While I agree with you that the luckier slaves in ancient times had it much better generally then the more privileged U.S. slaves, the lowest levels of slavery in ancient times are arguably much worse than what existed in the lowest levels of american slavery.
@kvdubs - why was it alright then? it still took good quality of life from actual human beings.
In Jesus Christ there are not Slaves.
the new man who is renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created him,
11 where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all.
Colossians 3
Slavery was a part of life then.
And its not like the bible says..
Hey Americans go get a bunch of Africans.
The Old test. is more specific than the new
@whataboutbahb -It was worse. During American slavery, slaves had no rights and were treated like cattle, or worse. I understand your point that slavery was bad back in biblical times but it was simply not as bad as enslaving an entire race and subjecting them to inhuman treatment for 200 years. There is a difference between American slavery and other forms of slavery.
maybe back then it did.. idk… but i dont think now…
That passage describes only the policy the Israelites instituted just after they had (re)conquered the Promised Land from the Canaanites. This is a history of a troubled time and how the ancient Israelites, for better or worse, dealt with it. Much of the Bible IS history. It must be read and understood to know what parts deal with God’s Word and what parts deal with the affairs of Man… in the context of the Gospel. Just because it’s mentioned in the Bible does not mean that it was ordained by God.
@musterion99 - He DOES discuss other things that aren’t nearly as overbeaten and dried up as Bible interpretations. There is no right answer to this; none of us were there, nor do we personally know anyone who was. Because of this, the Bible will and always will be individually interpreted, so shoving your personal high-horsed beliefs down everyone else’s throat solves absolutely nothing.
That verse certainly doesn’t condemn it…
@GlasgowKiss - He DOES discuss other things that aren’t nearly as overbeaten and dried up as Bible interpretations.
That’s completely irrelevant in regards to the comment you made and my response. Like I said, If you can’t stand it, then when he decides to post on it, don’t read it and stay away, and let those of us that want to discuss it, do so. Is that so hard for you to comprehend?
it may be saying it and it may not. the thing is…the Bible is VERY OLD. not saying that it doesnt have good stuff in it, but people just love to pick and choose certain elements from it. there are tons of things in the bible that people do not follow and yet there they are. and other things that are mentioned, or not, that are indeed followed.
@musterion99 - Are you retarded? It was completely relevant, you incompetent jackass. You told me to stop coming “here” as if you’re the king of the fucking internet, and I justified my reason for coming here.
Besides, I interjected my opinion, much as the rest of the people under this board have done; I severely doubt my comment against the topic in general did much to harm your precious scripture debate, so I will continue to interject my opinion in the future whether or not it pleases you, musterion88, because frankly, I don’t give a damn what you think. Is that so hard for you to comprehend?
i don’t really understand why it changes….the slaves were just as much another human being then as were slaves in pre-civil war america and any slaves would be now
@GlasgowKiss - Are you retarded? It was completely
relevant, you incompetent jackass. You told me to stop coming “here” as
if you’re the king of the fucking internet, and I justified my reason
for coming here.
I guess you’re not capable of understanding English or logic, so I’m not even going to attempt to go over what I was saying to you.
@musterion99 - That’s typical–you’ve checked your brain at the door like most xanga users. Why don’t you actually participate in the debate you’re trying to valiantly to defend rather than randomly attacking people whose views don’t fall in line with your’s? But that would require some amount of real effort, and composing a comprehensible thought that’s actually relevant to the topic would be far too difficult to you.
Oh, and in actually responding and making a mountain out of the mole hill that was my comment, you added even more irrelevancy to the entire post. Congratulations.
First off, Hussein Obama should stick to politics not the interpretation of the word of God. The man knows nothing about Jews, Christians or Christianity.
The bible speaks for itself…it needs no backers. The bible has outlived every man who has ever fought against it.
@GlasgowKiss - Why don’t you actually participate in the
debate you’re trying to valiantly to defend rather than randomly
attacking people whose views don’t fall in line with your’s?
I did participate. Is it a teeny weeny bit possible that out of 170 comments, you might have missed the comment I left in regards to this post? I wasn’t attacking you for disagreeing with me. Again, your complete lack of comprehension in what I was saying in regards to your comment.
Oh, and in actually responding and making a
mountain out of the mole hill that was my comment, you added even more
irrelevancy to the entire post. Congratulations.
Oh. I’m sorry. I was completely wrong. Forgive me. You’re a genius. It’s an honor to have the priveledge of talking with you.
@musterion99 - It’s possible–I really didn’t look.
What I assumed was that you replied to my initial comment because you saw no use complaining about the topic rather than actively discussing the topic, and I replied by attempting to justify my reason in general for posting and ending by saying that I really couldn’t care less what you think about my posts, however off-track of the topic they sometimes are.
If it’s anything other than that, there must have been a severe breakdown in communication somewhere.
I think the Bible just tells us that slavery was exist but the Bible doesn’t support it.
Under Hebrew laws, slaves were treated differently from slaves in other nations. they were seen as human beings with dignity and not as animals. Hebrew slaves, for example, took part in the religious festivals and rested on the sabbath. Nowhere does the Bible condone slavery, but it recognizes its existence. -Life Application Study Bible.
By only having slaves from outside of your nation, all slaves would be treated properly. However, do not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
When reading the bible, we have to always know the historical background and cultural differences during that era. Otherwise, there would be misinterpretations.
well slavery never really ended….altho its not slavery anymore…its called slave waging now!!!!! =P