Why does the bible condone slavery?

>>2524356
Why not?

It doesn't.

>>2524371
>Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear and sincerity of heart, just as you would show to Christ

?

>>2524377
Servants, not slaves. There is a difference.

Literally every single civilization and culture had servants that took care of the house, ran errands, cooked or did shit for you.

Slavery as in American slaves or taking prisoners of war captive are different.

>>2524356
Because it was written by ancient sandkikes who practiced slavery.

>>2524386
Yes, servants who weren't allowed to quit. Also known as slaves.

>>2524386
No, like actual slaves. Hell, you even have provisions for selling yourself into slavery if you can't pay a debt, or you stole something and don't have the money to pay the divinely ordered restitution. You have injunctions to treat slaves kindly "because you were slaves in Egypt", and I don't fucking think that means servants, not slaves.

>>2524398
They were allowed to go after a certain time had passed. Read the fucking Bible.

Most of the time, the servants did not even want to leave. They were attached to their master and his family. The bondmen and bond servant were seen as part of the family.

>>2524407
>Sure they were slaves, but it's not like they were PERMANENT slaves!

>And by the way, most of them didn't even WANT to be free!

Holy shit are you an apologist for slavery or an apologist for Christianity or both?

>>2524407
>They were allowed to go after a certain time had passed
Only Israelite slaves.

>>2524415
>have no argument
>resort to "y-you're just wrong cuz i say so!"

>>2524356
Because the bible is unconcerned with the status of a man in respect to his position of society. A slave should be treated with the same respect and dignity you would show to all humans by his master, and if the master holds to that, the slave should be happy. At that point, the only difference between a slave and a hired worker is the slave is not free to leave.

The idea of slavery in modern times is much more barbaric, in that the slave is essentially an object to be worked, rather than another member of the household.

>>2524428
/thread

Atheists making a big deal out of nothing again.

>>2524428
bingo
OP doesnt know shit about context

File: cbceb7c82569eaf811865cbea52de7af.jpg (111KB, 534x640px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 534x640px

>>2524356
Because its not inherently evil?
Slaves were treated well by some and horrible by others. Many people chose slavery, both in ancient history in the fertile crescent and Greece, as well as indentured servitude in Europe. Slavery to a good master was a way better life than being free and starving to death in some societies.

>>2524428
>>2524428
>>2524433
>>2524435
>this
Thread over

>>2524407
>They were allowed to go after a certain time had passed.

Leviticus 25:46 And you may take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them as a possession; they shall be your permanent slaves.

>Read the fucking Bible

>>2524428
>A slave should be treated with the same respect and dignity you would show to all humans by his master, and if the master holds to that, the slave should be happy.

That is objectively wrong. Exodus 21:20-21; ordinarily, killing someone merits death. Unless they're a slave, at which point it's a civic matter. And of course you have all the fun laws about how a slave's owner can tell him who to marry and have kids with, and then kick him out of the home and his own family when the guy's time is up. (21:4, and incidentally, the voluntarily staying longer than his usual 6 years is heavily implied because he doesn't want to leave his family, not because he's necessarily being treated well).

You have READ the Bible, haven't you?

File: Christ-Pantocrator-Monreale-1180.jpg (217KB, 1279x1001px) Image search: [Google]

217KB, 1279x1001px

>>2524386
>Servants, not slaves.
No, it's slaves and it's only modern politically correct view that slavery is something abhorrent.

It was perfectly normal in the Biblical times to own slaves. The Koine original of that passage says "Οἱ δοῦλοι, ὑπαkούετε τοῖς kατὰ σάρkα kυρίοις μετὰ φόβου kαὶ τρόμου ἐν ἁπλότητι τῆς kαρδίας ὑμῶν ὡς τῷ Χριστῷ" and the word δοῦλος (doulos) means slave in Greek.

It's completely anachronistic and whitewashing the Bible with modern PC culture and liberal values to translate δοῦλος as "servant" or "bond-servant" when it clearly means "slave". We aren't servants of Christ, we are SLAVES of Christ - and the real redpill is that there's absolutely nothing wrong with it.

>>2524470
But how will we differentiate ourselves from Islam and their submission?

>>2524440
>Slavery to a good master was a way better life than being free and starving to death in some societies.

better than starving to death is not a high standard, in fact many people would choose death over slavery, Even your "benign" ancient kind.

Just because it wasn't as bad as American Chattel slavery doesn't mean it wasn't bad, and at times really bad. I cant think of many societies where you were not allowed to have sex with your slaves, or sell them to anyone regardless of character, or breed them.

>>2524440
this.

locke also makes a pretty good case for slaves in two treatises.

>>2524356
Because the Old Testament God only cared for the Jews and didn't give a fuck about any other race.

I mean, He frequently ordered complete genocide of other nations, down to pregnant women and even cattle, just because they were already settled where He wanted to put "His chosen people."

>>2524386
>or taking prisoners of war captive are different.

bible condones that too

>When you draw near to a town to fight against it, offer it terms of peace. 11 If it accepts your terms of peace and surrenders to you, then all the people in it shall serve you at forced labor. 12 If it does not submit to you peacefully, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it; 13 and when the Lord your God gives it into your hand, you shall put all its males to the sword. 14 You may, however, take as your booty the women, the children, livestock, and everything else in the town, all its spoil

>>2524450
I have. The majority of Chapter 21 of Exodus deals with punishments for various crimes. It condemns the master for beating his slave to death, but absolves him if he does not cause death. This is to describe that a master has a right to correct his slave, just as the father has a right to correct his son, but never to the point of death. I would imagine this also applies to any sort of permanent injury as well, but I can only guess at where to draw the line there.

The slave being the property of the master has no bearing on his status as a human; he is still to be treated as a fellow man. Ancient tradition and the old testament would generally only extend status of "human" to Jews, after the coming of Christ, this is extended to everyone.

>>2524498
>I have. The majority of Chapter 21 of Exodus deals with punishments for various crimes. It condemns the master for beating his slave to death, but absolves him if he does not cause death. This is to describe that a master has a right to correct his slave, just as the father has a right to correct his son, but never to the point of death. I would imagine this also applies to any sort of permanent injury as well, but I can only guess at where to draw the line there.

No, it quite explicitly states that if he DOES cause death, he shall not be punished, for it is his money, which is a very, very different standard than intentional murder, which gets you the death penalty, so your statement >>2524428 that

>A slave should be treated with the same respect and dignity you would show to all humans by his master, and if the master holds to that, the slave should be happy. At that point, the only difference between a slave and a hired worker is the slave is not free to leave.

Is just incorrect.

>The slave being the property of the master has no bearing on his status as a human

Except for that whole "life for life, blood for blood" thing not being extended to a slave.

>Ancient tradition and the old testament would generally only extend status of "human" to Jews,

I'm going to want a citation on that, incidentally. The whole Cain and Abel story makes absolutely no sense in that light.

>>2524498
> It condemns the master for beating his slave to death, but absolves him if he does not cause death
if the slave dies two days after the beating it's totally alright though

>>2524482
Why should we be concerned with what muslims believe? Are we to abandon the truth just because muslims hold a similar position on certain issues?

>>2524509
>If someone beats his slave, male or female, and the slave dies at his hands, he must pay the penalty.
>But should the slave survive for one or two days, he will pay no penalty because the slave is his by right of purchase.

Seems pretty cut and dry for me. Don't beat your slaves to death.

Also, later in the chapter:

>If anyone strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys the use of it, he will give the slave his freedom to compensate for the eye.
>If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he will give the slave his freedom to compensate for the tooth.

Additional rules for compensation of damages to slaves, to be paid to the slave itself. Pretty much, don't permanently maim your slaves, for their status as slave is forfeit if you do.

I'm not quite up on my old testament enough to give any direct examples of Hebrew favoritism offhand, it's just the general sentiment I get when reading it. It isn't until the new testament that the distinction between gentile and jew is said not to matter multiple times, however, which can be taken as it did matter previously.

>>2524356
Point out slavery in the bible and some Christians will literally become apologists for slavery. Point out genocide they will defend that too, at least as an exception.

How is this not disturbing to everyone?

Because my dear op it was written in a time and culture when it was acceptable. Thats how you know it's a work of fiction and also how you know that it is society not a divine being that determines morality

>>2524560
>Additional rules for compensation of damages to slaves, to be paid to the slave itself. Pretty much, don't permanently maim your slaves, for their status as slave is forfeit if you do.

As opposed to the much harsher penalties (disfigurement) that you get if you did the same to a free man. I.E., NOT THE SAME BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE THE SAME STATUS YOU STUPID FUCKER.

>I'm not quite up on my old testament enough to give any direct examples of Hebrew favoritism offhand,

I didn't ask for examples of Hebrew favoritism, that's easy enough to find, if in nothing else the fact that the whole "letting your slaves go at the Sabbatical year" is something that only happens to Hebrews. I'm asking you to prove your much further reaching claim, that

> Ancient tradition and the old testament would generally only extend status of "human" to Jews

Because if you're equating favoritism to "only they are human", you get all sorts if idiotic corollaries, like "Jacob only treated his children with Rachel as human".

>>2524578
If your values and the Bible are in conflict then the problem is in your values, not in the Bible.

>>2524356
Because every civilization on the planet practiced slavery in some form until less than a thousand years ago.

>>2524356
Because it was written in a context where slavery already existed.

>>2524448
>this excerpt from a general rule given as an imperative for a time in now a universal rule for all hebrews
Double Kike detected.
>>2524356
I love how /his/ will always go after Christianity's interpretation of the Bible, never the Islamic or Jewish one.
I wonder who could be behind this?

I>
I%
I

>>2524676
His doesn't know the Jewish interpretation of the bible, and the certainly dont know the Muslim one, beside perhaps that its only accurate insofar as it doesn't contradict the Koran

>>2524356
It was a pretty normal thing back then, and the thought of abolishment was non existent.

>>2524676
I'm pretty sure the Jewish view is that the bible condones slavery

The Christian interpretation is that it's actually a metaphor that condemns slavery

>>2524386
So when Onesimus was returned to Philemon by Paul, and Paul pleaded with Philemon not to punish him for running away, Onesimus was just a hired laborer?

You're such a fucking shill.

>>2524428
A slave should be treated with the same respect and human dignity owed to a free man, not "corrected" by another adult for breaking a dish.

I knew most Christians evaded things such as Paul's tolerance of slavery, which he did so society wouldn't be disrupted and Christianity could gain as many converts as possible before the immanent return of Jesus; but a weaseling apology of even a "house slave" practice is a new low of pathetic.

>>2524566
Because you must defend the faith. Literally at all costs, even one's own humanity.

>>2524482
It's almost as if it was all made up bullshit. Nah. Never.

>>2524951
I agree, the theory of evolution is made up bullshit.

>>2524957
I never saw that movie. That's the one with Sean William Scott?

>>2524566
Because they believe the great spirit wills it. What are ya gonna do? Don't worry, they're not gonna do any harm. Thankfully we have pacified western Christians with sports and pornography.

>>2524566
Why do you believe that slavery and genocide are necessarily wrong?

>>2524994
because his jewish sociology professor told him

>>2524997
But Judaism supports both slavery and genocide

>>2524377
They literally thought the world would end in like a week a so, therefore it was way more important to just be a good christian instead of wasting your time on earthly matters such as overthrowing your master

>>2524566
See >>2524598

File: george fitzhugh.jpg (152KB, 349x400px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 349x400px

Slavery is just a fact of life, we will likely see a return of mass slavery within a few decades if the housing bubble doesn't pop. Southerners in the US before the civil war often thought of factory workers as being just as much slaves as the blacks picking cotton in the fields.

You had three tiers of people, with Free Men as people who owned a property which they could sustain themselves off the income from, then there were wage slaves who did not own property and needed a boss to pay them in order to survive, who were not allowed to vote until Andrew Jackson started white male suffrage, and then there were the slaves who were themselves property. It was entirely an innovation of the hyper capitalist Republican party that the top two groups became conflated.

It is interesting that despite how poor many of the Free Men of the south were, as their smallholder farms often only gave them the barest subsistence, they still fully believed in the superiority of themselves over the wagies of the north and were willing to enlist almost to a man in order to defend their current social order.

>>2525780
>Andrew Jackson
>Republican
Dude what

Because there is nothing unethical about slavery?

>>2525873
edgy

>>2525888
How is this opinion edgy. Most people though that there is nothing unethical about slavery for thousands of years. If anything, thinking that the opposite is true would be edgy.

>>2525932
This. Leftards have no perspective. I'd hope for better on a history board.

>>2525733
The difference between us, is my morality is based on a love of humanity rather than a book written by people who lived 2400 years ago and were definitely not in contact with a higher power

>>2526249
Your morality is based on Satan.

New International Version
Jesus replied, "Very truly I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin.