N
NolePaul2011
Guest
Had this thrown at me in a debate on homosexuality…I know slavery was legal back in those days, how does one answer that?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
R
Riddle_me_this
Guest
Could you be a little clearer with your question? Maybe just include a little more information.
In bible times a slave was just another word for an employee. If a person needed money they would borrow it from someone and then become their slave or employee in order to pay it back.
The bible was very specific about how slaves were to be treated but as we know that all people listen to the bible and that was the case back then too. Slaves were mistreated but it was not lawful and definitely not scriptural to do so.
Matthew 18:23 is one account that gives evidence of this but there are many more.
In bible times a slave was just another word for an employee. If a person needed money they would borrow it from someone and then become their slave or employee in order to pay it back.
The bible was very specific about how slaves were to be treated but as we know that all people listen to the bible and that was the case back then too. Slaves were mistreated but it was not lawful and definitely not scriptural to do so.
Matthew 18:23 is one account that gives evidence of this but there are many more.
B
Brendan
Guest
The Biblical concept of slavery was that of what we now would call an Indendured Servant.Had this thrown at me in a debate on homosexuality…I know slavery was legal back in those days, how does one answer that?
In modern times, it is also practiced in terms of prison labor.
It basically means that the labor of the person is entirely owned, but it carries no implication that the person themselves lack human dignity and are reduced to simple property
That was what ‘chattle’ slavery was. It was condemned by the Church. Indentured servatude or prison labor remain morally legitimate options, even if someone referes to those states under the term ‘slavery’
Contrast that with Biblical slavery. If a person sold himself into slavery, he was freed upon the next Jubilee year (every 7 years). And he was given money to return home.
No one can clam that that was how slaves were treated in the antebellum South.
N
NolePaul2011
Guest
Bascially the question that was thrown at me was…“what does the Bible say about slavery”. Knowing this guy, I believe he is an athiest/liberal trying to disprove the Bible.
G
gus
Guest
At the time of the old a new testament writings slavery was part of the fabric of society. Why would you expect a books written at this time to propose its eliminanstion?
The first place in the world were slavery decreased was the the Christain West.Prior to the discovery of the New World is was almost non existant in Eurupe rep
laced by peasantry.
It reappeared in the New World as large scale farming and a shortage of labor made it profitable. Despite Papal degrees aching against it. Papal decrees have always be ignored when. profit or morals were an issue.
Even with this the anti-slavery movement grew out of this historic European Christain distaste for slavery.
Yes the Bible was used to justify an evil but can 't most evils be justified somehow.
The logic of slave holders is the same as those who justify abortion.
The first place in the world were slavery decreased was the the Christain West.Prior to the discovery of the New World is was almost non existant in Eurupe rep
laced by peasantry.
It reappeared in the New World as large scale farming and a shortage of labor made it profitable. Despite Papal degrees aching against it. Papal decrees have always be ignored when. profit or morals were an issue.
Even with this the anti-slavery movement grew out of this historic European Christain distaste for slavery.
Yes the Bible was used to justify an evil but can 't most evils be justified somehow.
The logic of slave holders is the same as those who justify abortion.
T
tarboy
Guest
The below is not representative of biblical slavery
Many slaves were the result of war. Instead of being killed, soldiers and civilians were made slaves. They were owned property
The class of indentured servant may have been somewhat better, but it existed in form until recent times (think share croppers in south post freedom). Prison labor is a completely seperate issue
It is only in recent times that we’ve started to treat all God’s children with increased humanity, making slavery illegal. Notice though how subjegating fellow man is in our nature and thus slavery still exists in some forms…
Now to the OP
The bible teaches one how to live their life and walk with God. Loving your neighbor is about individual action. If you obey the commandments and love your neighbor, you will be what God wants.
The bible is not a treatsie on Government policies and laws, so it does not condemn monarchy and demand democracy. In similiar order, it does not discuss legality of slavery or universal healthcare, but does discuss how people should be treated with love.
If the bible had proposed a specific form of government and laws, it would not have survived
Many slaves were the result of war. Instead of being killed, soldiers and civilians were made slaves. They were owned property
The class of indentured servant may have been somewhat better, but it existed in form until recent times (think share croppers in south post freedom). Prison labor is a completely seperate issue
It is only in recent times that we’ve started to treat all God’s children with increased humanity, making slavery illegal. Notice though how subjegating fellow man is in our nature and thus slavery still exists in some forms…
Now to the OP
The bible teaches one how to live their life and walk with God. Loving your neighbor is about individual action. If you obey the commandments and love your neighbor, you will be what God wants.
The bible is not a treatsie on Government policies and laws, so it does not condemn monarchy and demand democracy. In similiar order, it does not discuss legality of slavery or universal healthcare, but does discuss how people should be treated with love.
If the bible had proposed a specific form of government and laws, it would not have survived
The Biblical concept of slavery was that of what we now would call an Indendured Servant.
In modern times, it is also practiced in terms of prison labor.
It basically means that the labor of the person is entirely owned, but it carries no implication that the person themselves lack human dignity and are reduced to simple property
That was what ‘chattle’ slavery was. It was condemned by the Church. Indentured servatude or prison labor remain morally legitimate options, even if someone referes to those states under the term ‘slavery’
Contrast that with Biblical slavery. If a person sold himself into slavery, he was freed upon the next Jubilee year (every 7 years). And he was given money to return home.
No one can clam that that was how slaves were treated in the antebellum South.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
What is recorded in the Bible is indentured servitude, not chattel slavery. Chattel slavery is condemned in Exodus 21:16.Had this thrown at me in a debate on homosexuality…I know slavery was legal back in those days, how does one answer that?
Mosaic law protected indentured servants from being abused by the people (or person) they worked for. Killing a servant merited punishment (Ex 21:20). Permanently injured servants had to be set free (Ex 21:26-27). Servants who ran away from oppressive person(s) they worked for were effectively freed (Dt 23:15-16)
The law also gave servants a day of rest every week (Ex 20:10, Dt 5:14).
Mosaic law was adamant about providing justice for the poor and not taking advantage of them (Dt 27:19, Ex 22:22-27). Only under extreme circumstances would someone be forced to sell themselves into indentured servitude because of their poverty. If the Israelites had followed the law faithfully, there would not have been any financial need at all (Dt 15:4-5).
Servants were to be included in community festivities (Deuteronomy 12, Deuteronomy 16).
Servants had the right to eat the food which was reserved for the Priest (Leviticus 22)
Recommend this link for more information:
Excerpt:
Israel did not make chattel slaves of defeated nations, and the Law of Moses made no provision for any kind of mass service aside from vassalage. Plantation style slavery was impossible for the Israelite in any case, as family groups did not have the capacity to house, secure, and provide for large groups of chattel slaves. Chattel slaves were expensive because they had no capacity to sustain themselves, and had to be fed and clothed at the expense of their master.
Even Abraham’s servants, before the Law of Moses, were certainly not chattel slaves, despite being born in his own house, else he could not have afforded to keep them and certainly could never have risked arming them and using them for war (Genesis 14:14-15). Large scale chattel slavery was totally impossible for the nomad. Abraham’s servants, though born in his house, were not chattel slaves. One of them (Eliezer), was not only master of his household (Genesis 24:2), but was also his heir (Genesis 15:3). This is not the position of a chattel slave.
bibleapologetics.wordpress.com/slavery-in-the-bible-25
- Status
- Not open for further replies.