When atheists say the Bible supports slavery

[Hokomai]

I am a Civil War buff and read a lot about it. And I pay less attention to the military aspects of the war. This is something I have known for a long time. And I know I read it again recently in one of the Civil War magazines I subscribe to. But which one I do not recall (tho I think it was Civial War Monitor).

Darwin’s Origin of Species was published less than two years before the outbreak of the American Civil war. It did not deal with the evolution of humans. His book on that subject, The Descent of Man was published in 1871. This does not make it impossible that there were slave-owners who used Darwin as a justification for slavery, but it does make it unlikely. So-called ‘Social Darwinism’, which is directly opposed to Darwin’s own beliefs, was a product of the later 19th century. Social Darwinists who owned slaves would have no doubt held the views you describe, but in the US, only as ex-slave-owners.

 

[Hokomai]

Found your question interesting so I Googled. Darwin was an abolitionist and a humanatarian. Believed that compassion somehow was the dividing factor making men above animals.

I didn’t hunt down an atheist slave-owner who used Darwin’s theory as justification but I’m sure it was used. Darwin started publishing in the 1830s. What slave owner, atheist or Christian, wouldn’t grab it for justification even though the author was against slavery?

Also he was born on same day as Lincoln, married his cousing Ann Wedgewood, had 10 children. I’m wondering if Wedgewood was the china company because it put out a plate in support of abolition.

I won’t repeat my previous post but it includes the relevant dates. Darwin did not publish anything about human evolution before 1859.

 

[Farsight001]

You should agree with them because it is true.

No it’s not. It talks about slavery. No where does it promote slavery though.

Of interesting note that might get people who bring this up thinking, a slave in NT times was a far cry different than what typically comes to mind today when we think of a slave.

A slave in NT times could marry, raise children, have a home, got paid, got a day off every week (the Sabbath of course), got to go on vacation and travel all over the place conducting his owner’s business. If he was good at his job, he was freed, which was akin to a promotion in which he got more responsibilities from his boss and got paid more to do it.

The only real difference between a slave of biblical times and lower-middle class man today is that on paper, the slave was property of his owner.

 

[DebChris]

No it’s not. It talks about slavery. No where does it promote slavery though.

Of interesting note that might get people who bring this up thinking, a slave in NT times was a far cry different than what typically comes to mind today when we think of a slave.

A slave in NT times could marry, raise children, have a home, got paid, got a day off every week (the Sabbath of course), got to go on vacation and travel all over the place conducting his owner’s business. If he was good at his job, he was freed, which was akin to a promotion in which he got more responsibilities from his boss and got paid more to do it.

The only real difference between a slave of biblical times and lower-middle class man today is that on paper, the slave was property of his owner.

I also found a verse earlier yesterday in either Levitus or Deuteronomy that says a person to whom a slave runs for protection is not be returned to his owner, but is instead to be given the protection he seeks.

In Philemon, St. Paul returns Onesimus, “no longer as a slave but more than a slave, a beloved brother.” St. Paul further takes financial responsibility for Onesimus’s debts.

 

[tarboy]

I agree with your first point, that the bible does not promote slavery, and neither does it explicitly condemn slavery.

Where are you getting your ‘facts’ that slaves in biblical times were treated so grandly?
First, it’s a silly claim to lump together slaves from the time of Abraham through Christ, and state they were all treated so well, or better than US colonial slaves.

Second, it is dishonest to use an exceptional example as representing the norm (a really good slave promoted to freedom by kind hearted master)

Slaves were property and their treatment varied with their value, local customs, their origin, and the heart of their master.

• Slaves sent to work the mines died in short order.
• Farm slaves had sustainable conditions
• Household slaves had it much better, if the family was rich,
• Sexual slavery was just part of the “right of ownership”
• Slaves were also the primary source of entertainment in the arena, in Rome.

Don’t confus increasing slave rights at the end of the Roman empire as representing their treatment over several thousand years.

Net, I argue colonial slavery was not much different from biblical slavery.

No it’s not. It talks about slavery. No where does it promote slavery though.

A slave in NT times could marry, raise children, have a home, got paid, got a day off every week (the Sabbath of course), got to go on vacation and travel all over the place conducting his owner’s business. If he was good at his job, he was freed, which was akin to a promotion in which he got more responsibilities from his boss and got paid more to do it.

The only real difference between a slave of biblical times and lower-middle class man today is that on paper, the slave was property of his owner.

 

[Holly3278]

I don’t see how Biblical slavery could even be compared to what we think of when we think of slavery these days. It was so drastically different during Biblical times.

 

[tarboy]

Please back up your opinion with some references on how slaves were treated in biblical times.

If anything, the life of salves improved over time due to advances in hygene and basic healthcare.

I don’t see how Biblical slavery could even be compared to what we think of when we think of slavery these days. It was so drastically different during Biblical times.

 

[_Abyssinia]

I can’t say I’m much of a bible scholar so that’s why I am asking this question… When atheist throw the old “the Bible supports slavery” line, what should one say?

What is recorded in the Bible is indentured servitude, not chattel slavery. Chattel slavery is condemned in Exodus 21:16.

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

 

[wiggbuggie]

here is an article up on town hall by michael brown who talks about this subject:

townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2012/05/04/dan_savage_savages_the_bible_christianity_and_the_pope_part_ii/page/full/

 

[wondrousgnat]

Darwin’s Origin of Species was published less than two years before the outbreak of the American Civil war. It did not deal with the evolution of humans. His book on that subject, The Descent of Man was published in 1871. This does not make it impossible that there were slave-owners who used Darwin as a justification for slavery, but it does make it unlikely. So-called ‘Social Darwinism’, which is directly opposed to Darwin’s own beliefs, was a product of the later 19th century. Social Darwinists who owned slaves would have no doubt held the views you describe, but in the US, only as ex-slave-owners.

You obviously do not know much about some of the arguments for the Civil War which were in use. The theory of evolution had reached America. The secession statements of 7 states included slavery and Texas put it into their constitution. The argument was that Blacks were inferior .

 

[Farsight001]

You obviously do not know much about some of the arguments for the Civil War which were in use. The theory of evolution had reached America. The secession statements of 7 states included slavery and Texas put it into their constitution. The argument was that Blacks were inferior .

But that argument had nothing to do with evolution. They had argued that blacks were inferior for decades already.

 

[Crumpy]

recall Verse 1 of Psalm 1:

Blessed is the man who does not walk

in the counsel of the wicked,

Nor stand in the way* of sinners,

nor sit in company with scoffers.

“Scoffers” are atheists. See, the verse says you probably shouldn’t waste your time with them at a real intense leve.

Fundamentally, such a person is NOT taking scripture as true and inspired, in the first place. So, they will never accept your answer. They do not know how to read the Bible.

So, if your “friend” keeps saying that the Bible supports slavery, advise him gently that it does not. The promotion of slavery is not the purpose of the Bible.

St Paul uses the term “slavery” rhetorically to say that he is a slave of Jesus Christ. That has to be understood in the spiritual context in which it is written.

 

[wondrousgnat]

I tried to respond by keeping it short in time (for me). Appearantly I was too brief.

I am not an expert on the history of the theory of evolution. But I do know that Darwin did not create it. He was a leading promoter. A century before Darwin some philosophers (Voltaire? Rousseau?) pushed the theory of evolution (I assume evolutionism is an outgrowth of the Protestant Reformation). And I believe it was promoted in the French Revolution of the late 18th Century. The theory of evolution was not something new to slave owners with Darwin’s book.

The abolitionists were a curious bunch. They were not, for the most part, supporters of equal rights. They most slavery and abuse. They felt Blacks should not be educated beyond the 4th grade. Not have equal pay, not shop at white places, live in white neighborhoods or marry whites. (Walt Whitman supported equal rights). Lincoln was so radical in his views of slvery that the South started seceeding before he took office. Today his views would label him an extreme racist.

Christian denominations split over the issue of slavery. The Southern Methodists and Southern Baptists were formed to defend it.

The Kansas-Nebraska Act was set to allow those states self determination on the issue of slavery in order for them to achieve statehood. Hundreds were killed in the battles that followed (Bleeding Kansas). if they did become slave states there would have been very few slaves anyway. Arizona and New Mexico were slave territories but it is unknown if either territory had any slave. Nor are there any known in West Texas.

As stated before the secession statements of 7 states included the defense of slavery.

During the Civil War there were secret organizations, such as the Knights of the Golden Circle,who planned to expand slavery to Central America and Cuba after the South won the war.

Toward the end of the war several generals, including Robert E Lee, argued for the enlistment of Blacks. But the president of the Confederate Congress opposed the idea stating thatthere was no purpose then for the war. Enlistment did occur but it was too late for them to see combat.

After the war Nathan Bedford Forrest and the man who wrote the rule book for the Masons created the KKK (Forrest later left in what may have been a religious conversion). The KKK, as we all know, grew quite powerful throughout the South and the North. Segregation and Jim Crowe laws also existed.

A form of slavery existed well into the 1950s in the presence of chain gangs. Blacks were often convicted of crimes they did not commit and even of “crimes” that never even happened.

 

[Hokomai]

You obviously do not know much about some of the arguments for the Civil War which were in use. The theory of evolution had reached America. The secession statements of 7 states included slavery and Texas put it into their constitution. The argument was that Blacks were inferior .

My ignorance on this topic, as with many others is boundless. Please help me learn more by pointing me to a slaveowner in the US who used Darwin’s theory to argue for slavery prior to the civil war.

 

[CGDouglas]

I tried to respond by keeping it short in time (for me). Appearantly I was too brief.

I am not an expert on the history of the theory of evolution. But I do know that Darwin did not create it. He was a leading promoter. A century before Darwin some philosophers (Voltaire? Rousseau?) pushed the theory of evolution (I assume evolutionism is an outgrowth of the Protestant Reformation). And I believe it was promoted in the French Revolution of the late 18th Century. The theory of evolution was not something new to slave owners with Darwin’s book.

The abolitionists were a curious bunch. They were not, for the most part, supporters of equal rights. They most slavery and abuse. They felt Blacks should not be educated beyond the 4th grade. Not have equal pay, not shop at white places, live in white neighborhoods or marry whites. (Walt Whitman supported equal rights). Lincoln was so radical in his views of slvery that the South started seceeding before he took office. Today his views would label him an extreme racist.

Christian denominations split over the issue of slavery. The Southern Methodists and Southern Baptists were formed to defend it.

The Kansas-Nebraska Act was set to allow those states self determination on the issue of slavery in order for them to achieve statehood. Hundreds were killed in the battles that followed (Bleeding Kansas). if they did become slave states there would have been very few slaves anyway. Arizona and New Mexico were slave territories but it is unknown if either territory had any slave. Nor are there any known in West Texas.

As stated before the secession statements of 7 states included the defense of slavery.

During the Civil War there were secret organizations, such as the Knights of the Golden Circle,who planned to expand slavery to Central America and Cuba after the South won the war.

Toward the end of the war several generals, including Robert E Lee, argued for the enlistment of Blacks. But the president of the Confederate Congress opposed the idea stating thatthere was no purpose then for the war. Enlistment did occur but it was too late for them to see combat.

After the war Nathan Bedford Forrest and the man who wrote the rule book for the Masons created the KKK (Forrest later left in what may have been a religious conversion). The KKK, as we all know, grew quite powerful throughout the South and the North. Segregation and Jim Crowe laws also existed.

A form of slavery existed well into the 1950s in the presence of chain gangs. Blacks were often convicted of crimes they did not commit and even of “crimes” that never even happened.

The earliest form, a proto-evolutionary theory goes back to around 600 BC.

God Bless,

Christopher.

 

[DebChris]

There really is no need to debate whether or not Darwinian Theory served as a support for slavery. The constitution, without regard to race, counted the slave as less than fully human.
One of the interesting finds from Ken Burn’s documentary on the War Between the States was that there were actually more abolitionists in the South than in the North. For those in the North, slavery was merely a concept; while for those living in the South, it was something they saw on a regular basis. Treatment of those in bondage throughout the centuries has ranged from benevolent to the cruelty endured by those who worked in the salt mines or Roman galleys. Southerners will tell you that the War Between the States was more about state rights than slavery. Before the Civil War, it was “the United States are,” while after the Civil War, it became “The United States is.”
Indentured servants in America could come from anywhere, while slaves were overwhelmingly of African descent. Indentured servitude had a time limit while slaves were considered property. The slave, not the time left on the contract, could be sold or passed to the next generation as inheritance.

 

[wondrousgnat]

My ignorance on this topic, as with many others is boundless. Please help me learn more by pointing me to a slaveowner in the US who used Darwin’s theory to argue for slavery prior to the civil war.

I don’t have any of their names. I also do not have any names of those whose Christian beliefs told them that slavery was wrong. maybe you could tell me who and how their Christian beliefs made slavery acceptable. Personally I do not have any detailed list of any individual slaveowners. As you know today many Christians do believe in evolution. And I don’t even know if the Catholic church takes a stand on that issue.

 

[Armyvet007]

My ignorance on this topic, as with many others is boundless. Please help me learn more by pointing me to a slaveowner in the US who used Darwin’s theory to argue for slavery prior to the civil war.

“Science” had been in use since at least the 18th century for the justification of racism and slavery [it can’t really be wrong if slaves aren’t really human]. Google racialism and science. Without knowing Darwin’s stance on slavery, it is rather easy to conclude his theories could be mis-used by the pro-slave groups.

 

[aicirt]

I don’t have any of their names. I also do not have any names of those whose Christian beliefs told them that slavery was wrong. maybe you could tell me who and how their Christian beliefs made slavery acceptable. Personally I do not have any detailed list of any individual slaveowners. As you know today many Christians do believe in evolution. And I don’t even know if the Catholic church takes a stand on that issue.

Many years ago, the nuns at my school said that evolution is a theory. The missing link has not been found. The bottom line is if it were found, we still believed that God was the creator of all.

Not too long ago, the Pope stated that their might be intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. If so, it too was created by God. Not some other god, but our God who has no limits.

 

[gus]

It was the Supreme Court that said a. slave was 3/5 of a human. It also said a fetis is not person.
Seems the agrument should be with the. jurists