But Biblical slavery wasn't the same!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-08-2015, 02:10 PM
But Biblical slavery wasn't the same!
I went to my friend's non-denominational church this past week and their series is on issues with the bible. Naturally they touched on the issue of slavery and women's rights. Of course they mentioned that slavery in the bible wasn't the same back then and gave the "it was indentured servitude" argument. The also claimed that Paul's writings were very forward thinking and that even mentioning the treatment of women and slaves flew completely in the face of the times.
I've read what the apologists say on these issues as well but I couldn't believe that I was actually hearing it in person and the worst part, my friend, who is not very biblically versed, was eating it up.

I'm sure there are people on here that were believers and accepted these apologist answers for a time but what was the catalyst that sparked your curiosity to say "No, I won't accept those answers anymore"?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Rkane819's post
24-08-2015, 03:20 PM
RE: But Biblical slavery wasn't the same!
Quote: Of course they mentioned that slavery in the bible wasn't the same back then and gave the "it was indentured servitude" argument.

Then how come the fuckers were so eager to get out of Egypt if it was such a piece of cake?

The one thing about religious fucktards is that they are always full of shit.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 8 users Like Minimalist's post
24-08-2015, 03:32 PM
RE: But Biblical slavery wasn't the same!
(24-08-2015 03:20 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  
Quote: Of course they mentioned that slavery in the bible wasn't the same back then and gave the "it was indentured servitude" argument.

Then how come the fuckers were so eager to get out of Egypt if it was such a piece of cake?

The one thing about religious fucktards is that they are always full of shit.

I'm pretty sure the... let's be generous and call it an argument, relates to the Jew's slave-taking practises, not those of the unwashed masses around them.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Free Thought's post
24-08-2015, 04:08 PM
RE: But Biblical slavery wasn't the same!
My pastor said similar things: Slavery back then was not how we think of slavery in *modern* times. It was a beneficial form of slavery--that helped those who needed to get out of debt or who did not have the means to take care of themselves. In the case of war slaves--this was a *kind* practice as they could have just killed them or in the case of women and children--just left them to die. *eye roll.*

Obviously, all of the above is just a form of sugarcoating and massaging of passages--which many churches are very skilled at.

"Let the waters settle and you will see the moon and stars mirrored in your own being." -Rumi
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like jennybee's post
24-08-2015, 04:19 PM (This post was last modified: 24-08-2015 04:24 PM by epronovost.)
RE: But Biblical slavery wasn't the same!
Slavery amongst the ancient Hebrews was no different from the practice of slavery of all other Semitic cultures of the time as well as that of Greeks, Romans, Mesopotamian and Iranian civilisations. Slaves were separated in two groups indentured servants which were Hebrew male born of Hebrew fathers who were incapable of paying back a debt and were forced into the service of their creditor for up to 7 years after which they must be released unless they are convinced, tricked or coerced into proclaiming their desire to remain slaves for all their lives. Otherwise, it was forbidden to enslave your fellow Hebrew men. Foreigners, including those living amongst the Hebrew or born out of non-Hebrew father could be bought has slaves and remained your property has would their children. Women were de facto slaves, but they could be enslaved officially and even sold by their own father.

Though, Hebrew were forbidden to be slave traders for they were commanded to buy their slaves from the heathens AKA the foreigners. They were also forbidden to capture and enslave men from the surrounding nation during wars (even though they sometime did). In that regard they prove to be softer than Greeks and Romans. Of course, this doesn't apply to women which they can enslave, sell and buy from their fellow Hebrew with no restriction at half the price of any male slave. Children of both sex bellow the age of 13 could also be bought and sold by Hebrews from other Hebrews. Women and children were the property of their father in that culture.

Laws surrounding slaves and women were common in all civilisation of the time even illiterate ones. In fact both Romans and Romans had very precise laws surrounding the various degree of slavery and the legal status of slaves. Women were also extensively described has second rate citizen or even simple property in Achaean Greek culture. Those two civilisations of course described and codify how this affected their legal status. Paul was actually even more backward when it came to women in the Roman Empire where they were at least allowed education and freedom of movement. If you compared Paul's vision of women to those of Bretons, Parthians and especially Sarmatian they would have considered him daft and stupid. Breton's would have considered the idea of slavery immoral so even there he wasn't special.

Simple knowledge of history can tell you that those apologetics are desperate attempt not to see the truth. The Bible is nothing more than a compendium of myth, legend, folklore and laws of an ancient civilisation, not the word of God and certainly not a moral guide for modern or ancient time. Even back then people were talking against slavery, against patriarchy and against the mistreatment of human being on the basis of their race. They were a minority, but still, it shows that even our long and distant ancestors knew that those things were not benefiting humanity.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like epronovost's post
24-08-2015, 04:25 PM
RE: But Biblical slavery wasn't the same!
I especially like the part where God instructs his people on how hard they are allowed to beat their slaves.

Oops! I mean, "indentured servants."




"I feel as though the camera is almost a kind of voyeur in Mr. Beans life, and you just watch this bizarre man going about his life in the way that he wants to."

-Rowan Atkinson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Can_of_Beans's post
24-08-2015, 04:27 PM
RE: But Biblical slavery wasn't the same!
I remember being taught biblical slavery was different, but that there were also biblical reasons for dark-skinned people to be "lower" than light-skinned people. (because dark-skinned people were descended from Ham and so they'd been cursed) I immediately could see this was a bunch of bullshit, and even the Sunday school teachers seemed a little embarrassed to be repeating it. However, I just thought it was a stupid and wrong interpretation of the bible and didn't challenge it farther. We moved around a lot until I was in sixth grade, and I just figured it was one church's stupidity, since I hadn't heard anything like it in the other churches I'd attended.

We settled in this church for six years, though. That's a good thing, for they were truly awful. I had a bit of an awakening when one Sunday school teacher told us girls, with the aid of various verses from Paul's writings, to always submit to our boyfriend or husband, no matter what the issue. Even when he seemed to be wrong, he would be spiritually correct, and eventually we'd realize that by following the male's judgment, everything had worked out for the best, no matter what those women's libbers said. Of course we were told that no women's libbers had a man.

I was 14, 15 or so, and I started thinking about all the boys in my honors classes and how they didn't seem any smarter than me. I wondered why it was so important to God that I didn't show up a man, if God had given me the gift of intelligence. Once I started to wonder, that was pretty much it for God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like julep's post
24-08-2015, 04:34 PM (This post was last modified: 24-08-2015 04:38 PM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: But Biblical slavery wasn't the same!
Read Leviticus 25, the whole chapter. It CLEARLY spells out the difference between indentured servitude (for Jews) and slavery (for non-Jews), and the fact that slaves were permanent property, to be willed to your children, etc., while indentured servants could/would be set free under most of the provisions in chapter 25. But verses 44-46 are quite explicit about slavery:

44 "As for your male and female slaves whom you may have—you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. 45 Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession. 46 You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another."

(Bold emphasis mine.)

Not much wiggle-room, there. And people preaching that it was different need to be smacked. Hard. The Southern Baptist Convention in particular LITERALLY came to be over the fact that the regular Baptist church wouldn't stick to the "literal truth of the Bible" and preach or help to enforce Leviticus 25:44-46, so it's not just an obscure passage, but one of the main ones Southern churches and politicians used to justify their position. They don't get to turn around now and say it meant something else. Fuck those guys for that chicanery.

Edit to Add: Note also that none of the BS being peddled about "slaves mercifully acquired in war instead of being killed" is in there. Rolleyes

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 8 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
24-08-2015, 04:36 PM
RE: But Biblical slavery wasn't the same!
(24-08-2015 04:27 PM)julep Wrote:  Of course we were told that no women's libbers had a man.

Or, perhaps just as importantly, that many women's libbers are men.

My church taught a lot of the same crap, except I heard it from the male perspective. "What do you mean, I have to 'guide' a woman? Lots of women are just as smart as I am!"

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
24-08-2015, 04:39 PM
RE: But Biblical slavery wasn't the same!
(24-08-2015 04:36 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(24-08-2015 04:27 PM)julep Wrote:  Of course we were told that no women's libbers had a man.

Or, perhaps just as importantly, that many women's libbers are men.

And some women's libbers who are men also have men. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Reltzik's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: