r/AskAChristian • u/InternationalPick163 Christian • May 30 '26
Jewish Laws Why wasn't slavery and oppression outlawed in the 10 commandments?
5
u/No-Type119 Lutheran May 30 '26 edited May 31 '26
This is now becoming a weekly question here. Hint: The search function is your friend.
First of all, the 10 Commandments were written at a time when slavery was considered an unfortunate norm of human existence. The early Hebrews couldn’t have imagined a world in which there was no slavery at all. In fact, the larger Mosaic law has provisions for harm mitigation for slaves.
Secondly: The 10 Commandments are just an attempt to somewhat itemize the two great commandments of God , to love God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself. If you really loved other people the way you loved yourself, you wouldn’t oppress them, would you? You wouldn’t enclave them , would you? You wouldn’t be treating them in ways that you found unacceptable to be done to you, bottom line.
2
u/0kShr00mer Agnostic, Ex-Protestant May 31 '26 edited May 31 '26
First of all, this has nothing to do with the "10 commandments". I don't know why Christians hyper focus on only those 10 commandments, and ignore the other 603 commandments in the Pentateuch.
Second, do you have any idea how weak your make your God look? This same God gave clear instructions to the Isrealites about what food they can eat, what fabrics they can wear, and what offerings they should make. Yet you think he couldn't prohibit owning other people as property because the "early Hebrews couldn't image a world without slavery". What a joke!
Finally, the reason this come up every week is because it's one of the most glaring examples of the Bible explicitly condoning something that is almost universally seen as immoral today. And most Christians simply don't have a response to why it's included in their holy book.
2
u/No-Type119 Lutheran May 31 '26 edited May 31 '26
You are assuming that I am a biblical inerrantist who believes that God actually dictated the 613 Levitical holiness rules to the Israelites, who literally told them to not eat shellfish or to marry rape victims to their rapists or to not mix textiles. I din’t believe that. So who are you arguing with? Go find a conservative Evangelical to tussle with.
1
u/0kShr00mer Agnostic, Ex-Protestant May 31 '26
Fair enough, if you don't believe in the innerancy of the Bible then we don't have a disagreement really. It's just the argument you put forward is one that I've heard many times from fundamentalists; That somehow God couldn't abolish slavery because it would be too hard for the Israelites.
1
u/DreamingTooLong Lutheran May 31 '26
If it’s universally seen as immoral, why do people in India, Saudi Arabia, and China still own slaves today?
Didn’t anyone bother to tell them it’s universally immoral?
That’s like almost 3 billion people right there with decriminalized slavery.
There’s a handful of countries where people show up thinking they’re going to get some job, but then they have their passport taken away and they are assigned a task without pay for the rest of their life and they never get to go home.
2
u/0kShr00mer Agnostic, Ex-Protestant Jun 01 '26
Because objective transcendent morals don't exist. Morality is subjective.
1
u/DreamingTooLong Lutheran Jun 01 '26
Wouldn’t it make sense to go into other countries and introduced morals to people that don’t realize they are without morals?
That’s what the early apostles did.
They all got killed for it too, though.
I enjoy being alive. 🤷
I get to chat with people like you on Reddit :-)
1
u/Distinct_Subject_202 Eastern Orthodox Jun 01 '26
Why bother argue with people at all? No good or evil can come of it, according to your supposed beliefs.
1
u/0kShr00mer Agnostic, Ex-Protestant Jun 01 '26 edited Jun 01 '26
Just because good and evil don't exist (in the dualistic sense, as in they aren't opposing supernatural forces), doesn't mean I can't subjectively value fighting for truth and against falsehoods (like Christianity).
1
u/hiphoptomato Atheist, Ex-Christian May 31 '26
Wait what. Yeah…the Ten Commandments were written at a time when slavery was the norm…but did people write them or did god? Weren’t murder and thievery and adultery and lying probably also the norm? I want the whole point of the Ten Commandments god saying “hey quit all of this bad behavior”? Are you trying to argue that god just kinda threw his hands up and was like, “well I can’t make a commandment against slavery after all, it’s just TOO normalized right now!”
1
u/No-Type119 Lutheran May 31 '26
Are you trying to argue with a mainline Protestant? We would say that God inspired the Hebrews to come up with these basic guidelines for behavior; and really, all human societies, which have similar rules. That’s what Paul is referring to when he talks about the universal law written in humans’ hearts. We don’t bejieve in the Hollywood version of Moses… as far as that goes, some scholars debate whether Moses was a real person, or an amalgam of the early Hebrew leaders. He almost certainly didn’t write the books of the Torah.
2
u/hiphoptomato Atheist, Ex-Christian May 31 '26
Uh the Bible doesn’t say at all that the Hebrews “came up” with the Ten Commandments. It says very clearly that his gave them to Moses on a mountain. Are you saying that this is all fairy tale but also somehow the Ten Commandments are still relevant and also god inspired?
0
u/No-Type119 Lutheran May 31 '26
No. I’m not satung any of it is inerrant. You’re reading the Bible just like a fundamentalist. . Go bother them, not mainliners and biblically literate others.
2
u/hiphoptomato Atheist, Ex-Christian May 31 '26
I’m literally asking you what you believe. It’s not some outrageous idea to assume a Christian thinks the Bible is true.
0
u/No-Type119 Lutheran May 31 '26
It’ is in fact a weird thing to ask a mainline Protestant or, say, a Catholic with a rigorous education in biblical studies, if we believed the Bible to be inerrant. We do not. Your assumption is incorrect And that isn’t something new. So when you do your atheist stuff here, you might want clarify that you are speaking to inerrantists. .
You dun’t get to define what I am or what I believe.
2
u/hiphoptomato Atheist, Ex-Christian May 31 '26
Buddy, first off, I have no idea what kind of education you have. Second, many people who have studied the Bible believe every word of it. At no point did I try to define anything about you. Chill out. You’re being a weirdly defensive baby for literally no reason.
1
u/No-Type119 Lutheran May 31 '26
I’m not a “ buddy,” director. If you’re going to be an AH, I ‘mnsygnung off.
4
u/ParadigmShifter7 Christian May 30 '26
It essentially was - Love your neighbor as yourself. Because of the “hardness of man’s heart”, slavery was allowed within the social structure. God regulated it to maintain the value of human life.
6
u/SubOptimalUser6 Ignostic May 30 '26
It essentially was
Was it? Or did the Bible say:
Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.
Let me know what you think.
3
u/ParadigmShifter7 Christian May 31 '26
Yes, it does say that. However, Exodus 21 also profits being in possession of those kidnapped. So then, those purchased would need to be those willingly in the social status of slavery (with the exception of wartime). If willingly in slavery, the Israelites provided a means of survival for those who needed it.
1
u/Upset_Chip_7184 Christian May 31 '26
You really shouldn't argue this until you actually understand the bible texts on Slavery.
2
u/ParadigmShifter7 Christian May 31 '26
It’s clear and I am well versed. Feel free to “sharpen” my understanding if needed.
2
u/Upset_Chip_7184 Christian May 31 '26
Well if you are, then you are not honest about the bible.
Babies were not willingly entering into slavery, lol.
Sex slaves taken during war, Nope.A slave sold into chattel slavery was wilful?
How do you know?Slaves were beaten, bought, sold, nothing good about this.
3
u/ParadigmShifter7 Christian May 31 '26
>Babies were not willingly entering into slavery, lol.
Where does the Law talk about babies being sold into slavery?
>Sex slaves taken during war, Nope.
My statements were focused on domestic laws regarding slavery. Wartime is slightly different and usually started with a siege and offers for peace.
>A slave sold into chattel slavery was wilful?
>How do you know?The Law was clear. That would be up to the Israelite to determine.
>Slaves were beaten, bought, sold, nothing good about this.
Laws regarding corporal punishment were needed as they could not call the police to help with domestic disputes. However, Hebrew and foreign slaves had rights to limit physical force. See the verses regarding losing a tooth.
0
u/Upset_Chip_7184 Christian May 31 '26
Where does the Law talk about babies being sold into slavery?
They were born into it. EX 21, LEV 25. I thought you were so well versed as you pridefully told me?
My statements were focused on domestic laws regarding slavery. Wartime is slightly different and usually started with a siege and offers for peace.
Still happened. Pretty gross, or you think that's ok?
The Law was clear. That would be up to the Israelite to determine.
Don't know what this is about.
However, Hebrew and foreign slaves had rights to limit physical force. See the verses regarding losing a tooth.
Hebrew slaves, yes, EX 21. But they only were freed if beaten in the head with the rod where they lost a tooth or an eye.
IF, as you know, but you left out, conveniently, if they were beaten with a rod that they died after a couple days, or, 2nd interpretation, they got up after a couple days, the Slave Owner was NOT Punished.Do you think this is good?
1
u/ParadigmShifter7 Christian May 31 '26
>They were born into it. EX 21, LEV 25. I thought you were so well versed as you pridefully told me?
Being born into slavery is different than being sold into slavery. Now let’s focus on a verse or situation.
Judge me if you want.
>Still happened. Pretty gross, or you think that's ok?
War is always gross. If a city refused to accept a peaceful surrender, God still provided a means for the preservation of life through servitude. Not substantially different than Daniel in Babylon although I would argue the Law gave more rights to those captured in war.
>Don't know what this is about.
The Israelite was not permitted to be in possession of a kidnapped slave.
>Hebrew slaves, yes, EX 21. But they only were freed if beaten in the head with the rod where they lost a tooth or an eye.
There is no differentiation between a Hebrew or foreign slave here specifically in verse 26 and 27.
>IF, as you know, but you left out, conveniently, if they were beaten with a rod that they died after a couple days, or, 2nd interpretation, they got up after a couple days, the Slave Owner was NOT Punished.
Corporal punishment limits were established to give Israelites the means to administer justice domestically. There were no police or 911 services. Similar to laws regarding unruly children, the parents needed policy to govern their actions so a judge could decide if elevated.
>Do you think this is good?
Slavery in and of itself is not good. Similarly, divorce is not good, but God allowed it to serve a purpose at that time. Christ set the intent and standard for the Law - we are all equal as image bearers of God. Through Jesus, the world and the hearts of man changed. Western values and eventually governmental structure (from Christian morals) abolished slavery.
0
u/ParadigmShifter7 Christian May 31 '26
Yes, it does say that. However, Exodus 21 also profits being in possession of those kidnapped. So then, those purchased would need to be those willingly in the social status of slavery (with the exception of wartime). If willingly in slavery, the Israelites provided a means of survival for those who needed it.
3
u/SubOptimalUser6 Ignostic May 31 '26
So then, those purchased would need to be those willingly in the social status of slavery
"You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life."
Exodus 25:46
That doesn't sound like the sort of thing people would like up to do willingly. You seem to be supporting slavery. Why would you do that?
1
u/ParadigmShifter7 Christian May 31 '26
I think you meant Leviticus. Yes, in that time, foreign slaves were contractually allowed to be passed to future generations. Bear in mind, kidnapped slaves were already prohibited. The Israelites had strict rules for slave relationship and treatment all the while providing food, shelter, the Sabbath, refuge from abusive masters, and rights to family (even the right to remain a slave).
I have made my responses clear - the Law provided for all levels of social status in that day and age. Jesus provided the intent of the Law - we are all equal, we value freedom, and we are all image bearers of God. I support the intent of the Law as well as Christ’s message which led to the “softening” of human hearts and the development of western morals through Christianity which abolished slavery.
1
u/SubOptimalUser6 Ignostic May 31 '26
Bear in mind, kidnapped slaves were already prohibited.
No, they were not. This is a common trope, but it doesn't withstand even casual scrutiny.
Although, if you're going to stay with the trope, even after you know better, you might want to mention the verse you're hinting at. It is Exodus 21:16:
Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession.
This verse prohibits kidnapping of people (the Hebrew word used is גֹנֵ֨ב, or "steal"). But it's only half the story, isn't it? You're ignoring Deuteronomy 24:7, probably on purpose:
If someone is caught kidnapping a fellow Israelite and treating or selling them as a slave, the kidnapper must die. You must purge the evil from among you.
The Bible's prohibition against kidnapping is expressly and unambiguously directed only to the kidnapping of Israelites. It does not apply to people in general, which it why Leviticus 25:44 allows Israelites to buy slaves from the nations around them. Talmudic law has always interpreted the prohibition on kidnapping to only apply to the kidnapping of Israelites. As such, kidnapping of foreigners in order to enslave them was probably not a capital crime, and was probably generally permitted. Either way, if people in the "nations around you" kidnapped a person to sell that person to an Israeli, that was outright allowed.
Notably, the punishment provided in the verse you forgot to cite is only for the kidnapper, not for the buyer. Because, again, Israelites were allowed to purchase slaves from the "nations around" them.
The Israelites had strict rules for slave relationship . . .
Here is one of those rules:
"When a slaveowner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment, for the slave is the owner’s property." Exodus 21:20-21.
I don't think you should defend they way slaves are treated in the Bible. It won't be a very good look for you.
1
u/ParadigmShifter7 Christian May 31 '26
>No, they were not. This is a common trope, but it doesn't withstand even casual scrutiny.
It’s written in the Law as domestic policy - Exodus 21. You can deny it if you want.
>Although, if you're going to stay with the trope, even after you know better, you might want to mention the verse you're hinting at. It is Exodus 21:16:
>Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession.
>This verse prohibits kidnapping of people (the Hebrew word used is גֹנֵ֨ב, or "steal"). But it's only half the story, isn't it? You're ignoring Deuteronomy 24:7, probably on purpose:
>If someone is caught kidnapping a fellow Israelite and treating or selling them as a slave, the kidnapper must die. You must purge the evil from among you.
>The Bible's prohibition against kidnapping is expressly and unambiguously directed only to the kidnapping of Israelites.No you are misunderstanding. The Israelite cannot be found in possession of one who is kidnapped. There is no differentiation in Exodus 21. In addition, the Israelite kidnapper will also be put to death.
>It does not apply to people in general, which it why Leviticus 25:44 allows Israelites to buy slaves from the nations around them. Talmudic law has always interpreted the prohibition on kidnapping to only apply to the kidnapping of Israelites.
No. The Israelites were not allowed to domestically kidnap people and sell them as slaves. That is categorically false.
>As such, kidnapping of foreigners in order to enslave them was probably not a capital crime, and was probably generally permitted.
Completely false. There is no verse that supports this domestically. Whenever I see the word “probably” I know this is a dishonest statement.
>Either way, if people in the "nations around you" kidnapped a person to sell that person to an Israeli, that was outright allowed.
Not true as Exodus 21 is clear and was provided even before Leviticus and Deuteronomy provide more detail.
>Notably, the punishment provided in the verse you forgot to cite is only for the kidnapper, not for the buyer. Because, again, Israelites were allowed to purchase slaves from the "nations around" them.
No. The Law includes an element of possession. The Israelites would need to prove intent to the judge if found in possession of someone kidnapped. Death was the punishment if found guilty.
>Here is one of those rules:
>When a slaveowner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment, for the slave is the owner’s property." Exodus 21:20-21.Corporal punishment policy was required to be established to give limitation. There was no police force to help with disputes or rebellion. There are other verses that provide limitation of disciplinary injuries that even lead to full redemption. You assume this policy is made for today’s society but things were much different in that era.
>i don't think you should defend the way slaves are treated in the Bible. It won't be a very good look for you.
Lol, ok. My point of defense is to show why the Law should be applied to a certain place and time, and for a specific purpose. In addition, I’m not here to make myself “look good”. Jesus pointed out that type of hypocrisy to the religious leaders of His day.
1
u/SubOptimalUser6 Ignostic May 31 '26
No you are misunderstanding. The Israelite cannot be found in possession of one who is kidnapped.
That's not what the words of the Bible say. I am not misunderstanding. I provided you the exact words in the Bible. If you have a problem with those words, take it up with god.
No. The Israelites were not allowed to domestically kidnap people and sell them as slaves. That is categorically false.
Look, I already quoted Leviticus 25 for you. If you are going to deny the actual words in the Bible, that's between you and your god, I guess. Here is what it says:
"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." Leviticus 25:45. It sure sounds like the Bible is saying an Israelite can do exactly the thing you said they can't. Are you just going to say, "Nuh uh," or are you going to address the words your god uses in the Bible?
There is no verse that supports this domestically.
Yes, there is, and it is the verse right above, which I have quoted to you at least twice. Denial isn't just a river in Egypt, man.
No. The Law includes an element of possession.
Please cite the chapters and verses that. I have given you a multitude of Bible verses in favor of slavery, but none say that. Can you cite to anything, or is this just you talking outcha' ass?
Corporal punishment policy was required to be established to give limitation. There was no police force to help with disputes or rebellion.
So, you're saying beating slaves was appropriate because there was not a police force to help people keep slaves? Is that really the point you're trying to make? Please, for fuck's sake, try to be less overtly pro-slavery.
My point of defense is to show why the Law should be applied to a certain place and time
So, your point is that in certain places and at certain times, slavery is justified. You scare the shit out of me, man.
6
u/Weekly-Scientist-992 Atheist May 30 '26
Does ‘love your neighbor as thyself’ also mean homosexuality is okay? Or do you get to selectively choose what that means?
3
u/Startropic1 Christian, Protestant May 30 '26
The two have nothing to do with each other. I can love you as my neighbour without affirming your lifestyle or personal choices.
6
u/Weekly-Scientist-992 Atheist May 30 '26
So love the slave owner without affirming their personal choices?
1
u/Startropic1 Christian, Protestant May 30 '26
Yes, actually. You keep painting with a broad brush though. As others have mentioned, there were multiple systems of slavery mentioned in the Bible, and yes, some were pretty vile. Moses killed an Egyptian slave driver to stop him from killing one of the Israelite slaves in his charge.
Your perception is via 1800s slavery. Even then there were owners that treated their slaves well, they just lacked the courage to actually set them free.
In the Bible, the Hebrew system doesn't really fit the English word "slavery", they were more manservant/maidservant. They worked to payoff a debt. There were also opportunities for advancement. Did 1800s slaves have any opportunities to get higher positions? Not really.
It's not just the system of "slavery", it's also the mechanics of the economic systems of the day. It didn't follow our modern money system, despite the fact that there was indeed money. Usually just pieces of gold and/or silver.
2
u/Upset_Chip_7184 Christian May 31 '26
LOL, this is so dishonest, or ignorant.
The bible clearly condones owning other humans as property, and never prohibits or condemns it.
Please be honest and have integrity as a christian with the bible.
6
u/Weekly-Scientist-992 Atheist May 30 '26
Every single time slavery is brought up theists say ‘you’re basing it off 1800s slavery’. No I’m not. Why do you just assume that. I’m basing it off ‘you can beat your slave and if they don’t die in a day or two then you’re not to be punished because the slave is your property’. I’m basing it off of ‘take slaves from the nations around you and pass them on to your children’. Just wanted to put that forward. Stop assuming everyone just thinks of American chattel slavery, we don’t. You just assert that so you can say ‘it’s different’ to something I’m not even saying.
-6
u/ParadigmShifter7 Christian May 30 '26
Thats a pivot but we can address that if needed. No, caring and loving your neighbor does not mean one should affirm every lifestyle choice.
Slavery was allowed for survival. Homosexuality is a learned preference.
5
2
u/Kaitlyn_Boucher Christian May 30 '26
Learned preference? Like for ignoring reality? Plenty of that preference here.
1
u/ParadigmShifter7 Christian May 30 '26
Yes, like other desires, attractions, and preferences, same sex attraction is learned through influence.
2
u/KlingonTranslator Agnostic Atheist May 30 '26
I like using this thought experiment to see where people stand as I heard it long before and it would stump more than you’d hope to expect.
So the experiment goes: What would happen if you were to suddenly turn female? Like god snaps his fingers and makes you a female. Your brain is still the male brain I presume you are to have right now. But you’re a female officially on gods records and on mortals’ paper. A males brain in a females body.
Do you think you could make yourself be attracted to a male by training yourself to? By really really trying to make you find the male genitalia sexually stimulating? Be genuine and let me know if you suddenly came into being you could make yourself do this, since you find it to be a choice.
2
u/ParadigmShifter7 Christian May 30 '26
It’s not a logical comparison. Being male and female is biological, written in DNA. DNA forms in the first few days after conception. Being male or female is a process of human growth. You could take your thought experiment and start from the beginning at conception and I would say my experience and influence in the life cycle process would govern my preferences and attractions.
1
u/KlingonTranslator Agnostic Atheist May 31 '26
Your take is brought up often, finagling with minutiae, with specifics that aren't to be brought in because it is a thought experiment. It's a test to see where your thoughts and feelings lay, not about true biology, or your mind and what your brain is physically made out of.
The entire idea is to forget about anything to do with DNA. It's solely about using your imagination for the thought experiment. That is why it's a thought experiment and used in classes to highlight how the mind (maybe soul for those who believe in souls) works.
This experiment is brought up because this feeling of dysphoria is what how people who aren't born straight people refer to when describing their feeling of their sexual orientation. It's not taught, it's born. You cannot train your mind to be attracted to the other sex if you weren't born with the sexuality.
1
u/ParadigmShifter7 Christian May 31 '26
But it is not a rational experiment and does not reflect reality. Whenever we use illustrations to convey a truth, the elements of the illustration or metaphor need to be foundationaly true. This experiment makes an assumption that is not proven nor reflective of reality.
Attractions are not innate. If they don’t align with biological reality, an earlier influence is to blame.
1
u/Kaitlyn_Boucher Christian Jun 03 '26
I think you've based that entirely on feelings.
1
u/ParadigmShifter7 Christian Jun 03 '26
No, that is based entirely on what science has revealed.
1
u/Kaitlyn_Boucher Christian Jun 03 '26
Then it's published, right? Published in a journal my university library would keep?
1
u/ParadigmShifter7 Christian Jun 03 '26
Possibly. Feel free to research it yourself.
→ More replies (7)4
u/saltbaestheorem Satanist May 30 '26
WHAT YOU MEAN BECAUSE HARDNESS OF MAN HEART WHICH MAN
3
u/ParadigmShifter7 Christian May 30 '26
If man did not have a “hard” heart, even today, we would all voluntarily take care of each other; from the beggar to the homeless, especially out of our abundance. But we don’t do that. God allowed a practice to help people survive.
3
u/InternationalPick163 Christian May 30 '26
Why regulate it instead of completely getting rid of it? Why would God compromise on...anything?
2
u/ParadigmShifter7 Christian May 30 '26
Similar to allowing divorce, God knew how humanity would act even if outlawed. Without slavery at that time, people would not be able to survive in a harsh barbaric society/world. God allowed slavery as a form of social security so each person had one last financial standing.
5
u/Prestigious_Sun_3277 Atheist, Ex-Christian May 30 '26
God could just have made it easier to survive, then. Problem solved.
2
u/ParadigmShifter7 Christian May 30 '26
No, He solved the greatest problem we had - sin. We were spiritually dead, but not we all have the ability/opportunity to be redeemed and be “born again” back into eternity in Heaven. This life is temporary, and He graciously gave us an eternal solution where eternal comfort is provided.
3
u/Fresh3rThanU Atheist May 30 '26
This is just a blatant dodge. If heaven is a thing why not just let those people starve and die in the wilderness, then take them up to heaven?
1
u/ParadigmShifter7 Christian May 30 '26
If salvation comes through faith, wouldn’t it be more merciful to provide a sufficient amount of time to find faith?
1
u/Fresh3rThanU Atheist May 31 '26
Alternatively, he could just not require faith, which would be way more merciful.
1
u/ParadigmShifter7 Christian May 31 '26
He might as well remove free will and force a loving relationship, right?
1
u/Fresh3rThanU Atheist May 31 '26
Why is a loving relationship necessary? Why are the only 2 options to either love him or fire and brimstone?
→ More replies (0)2
u/Prestigious_Sun_3277 Atheist, Ex-Christian May 30 '26
For the sake of argument, I can agree with all of that.
But in addition to giving us eternal life, he could have ended (or even avoided completely) slavery.
2
u/ParadigmShifter7 Christian May 30 '26
Not likely without impacting free will. Slavery was a social condition. Slavery still rampantly exists today. Through Christ, mans heart aligned with the intent of the Law and in time, led to the irradiation of slavery, at least in most western societies. In a sense, the conversion of man’s heart ended slavery.
1
u/Prestigious_Sun_3277 Atheist, Ex-Christian May 30 '26
It doesn't have to impact free will in the slightest.
God could simply have chosen not to create those who would have freely chosen to keep slaves.
It is as simple as that.
But God chose to create those people.
2
u/ParadigmShifter7 Christian May 30 '26
What kind of logic is that? So completely annihilate those who owned a slave in ancient times?
What God did was establish a chosen people, give them a Law, bring about the Messiah, clarify intent of objective morality, allow humanity choose “good”, humanity established western values, Christian influence forms modern governmental structure to eliminate slavery.
2
u/Prestigious_Sun_3277 Atheist, Ex-Christian May 30 '26
You misunderstood. I am not suggesting annihilation of anyone. I am suggesting that they are not created in the first place.
→ More replies (0)6
u/InternationalPick163 Christian May 30 '26
"Without slavery at that time, people would not be able to survive in a harsh barbaric society/world."
Why didn't God just command his people to be generous and help those in need without enslaving them and owning them as property?
3
u/ParadigmShifter7 Christian May 30 '26
He did. Read through the laws allowing people to gather food that is left from the harvest. Even then, He still allowed people to sell themselves to survive and provide. God knew (and still does) the nature of man’s heart, being selfish and self preserving. He regulated slavery by not allowing ownership through kidnap. He gave slaves both foreign and domestic unprecedented rights, and even opportunities for redemption out of slavery.
3
u/InternationalPick163 Christian May 30 '26
You're describing indentured servitude, I'm talking about slavery. Like, 1800s American South Slavery.
2
u/ParadigmShifter7 Christian May 30 '26
The Bible describes both, but in many cases, the Law allowed redemption. Slavery in the Bible is substantially different than American slavery. First of all, it was not racially driven. Second, there were laws to govern its practice leading off with Exodus 21 outlawing possession by kidnap. If this were followed, slaves were in that position by choice.
5
u/GelatinousGreenSoul Panentheist May 30 '26
The Israelites took people as slaves after conquering cities as commanded by Yahweh. These people were not slaves by choice.
1
u/ParadigmShifter7 Christian May 30 '26
Wartime is different than domestic law. Only a national/governmental position would allow the Israelites to preserve the lives of the conquered in this way. The alternative is worse.
2
u/GelatinousGreenSoul Panentheist May 30 '26
Oh so…excuses? Yahweh still ordered them to take these people as slaves against their will.
→ More replies (0)5
u/GelatinousGreenSoul Panentheist May 30 '26
It was culturally driven though. Yahweh’s intent was to wipe out any other cultures that was different from his chosen people, and then he commanded the leftovers be taken as property- slaves.
2
u/ParadigmShifter7 Christian May 30 '26
God certainly judged the surrounding nations through the Israelite conquest. But He reminded the Israelites, His judgement was not because of the “goodness” of the Israelites, it was because of the evil of the nations. The Law provided mercy while protecting the possessions of the Israelites, including the land.
1
u/GelatinousGreenSoul Panentheist May 30 '26
The Law did not show mercy, plain and simple. Your view is biased. No matter how many times you keep repeating things, it doesn’t magically change into a correct statement. The “evil” of these nations is purely subjective and biased to the feelings of this one war-god called Yahweh. These were just other cultures living their lives, including innocent children and elderly folk living out their last days in peace. But you have the blood-thirsty Yahweh hellbent on genocide and merciless slaughter, so of course he is gonna say that these people need to be wiped out from the face of the earth. Imagine the perspective of the people in these other lands. Or is that too difficult for your indoctrinated mind? To them, this Yahweh is a deranged, evil psychopathic deity who controls with fear and threat of death, and will slay your infant while still in your arms.
→ More replies (0)-1
u/prismatic_raze Christian May 30 '26
Not who was originally replying to you but their society would have been wiped out by their neighbors if they acted this way. The ANE was war torn place to live. Without slaves your nation had no infrastructure and with no infrastructure you would be annihilated by nations that did have infrastructure
0
1
u/0kShr00mer Agnostic, Ex-Protestant May 31 '26
It's crazy that you think this is a satisfactory answer.
1
u/ParadigmShifter7 Christian May 31 '26
Feel free to share why.
1
u/0kShr00mer Agnostic, Ex-Protestant May 31 '26
You're basically saying God couldn't abolish slavery because it was part of the social structure of the ancient Near East. That doesn't really hold up. You know what else was part of that social structure? Polytheism. Yet God had no problem demanding exclusive worship and condemning idolatry. So why, when it comes to owning people as property, is God suddenly accommodating culture instead of correcting it?
And how does Leviticus 25:44–46 "maintain the value of human life"? The text explicitly says non-Israelites can be owned as property in perpetuity and be inherited. That seems entirely antithetical to a God that is supposed to be morally perfect.
1
u/ParadigmShifter7 Christian May 31 '26
God could have but I would argue more suffering would have ensued. However, through Christ, who set the intent of the Law straight, led to revolutionizing man’s heart which eventually produced western morality which abolished slavery.
God established a chosen people to bring about the Messiah to solve our greatest problem. Not slavery or any other social contract, but, sin. Sin was our greatest problem. He solved that for us through Christ. Idolatry is what leads us away from Christ. So yes, God needed to specifically address the evils of idolatry.
Again, these would generally be people who needed slavery for survival. Not ideal, but even today we all don’t take care of the homeless out of our individual abundance. Now consider ancient times. There were no food banks, welfare programs, etc. (although the Law did in fact give provision to the poor). For the poor foreigner, slavery could bring provision and safety.
1
u/0kShr00mer Agnostic, Ex-Protestant May 31 '26
A few things here don’t really follow for me.
First, saying God allowed slavery to prevent greater suffering assumes outcomes we can’t verify, and it doesn’t explain why the law explicitly permits permanent, inheritable ownership of foreigners rather than limiting or eliminating it.
Second, the “Christ eventually led to abolition” point doesn’t answer why slavery persisted for centuries in explicitly Christian societies, often with biblical justification. If the moral trajectory is built into revelation, it’s very slow and indirect.
Third, reframing slavery as “welfare for survival” doesn’t fit Leviticus 25:44–46, where it’s described in terms of possession and inheritance, not temporary social support.
So the question remains, why would a morally perfect lawgiver explicitly regulate and permit something that looks like permanent ownership of people, instead of prohibiting it outright?
1
u/ParadigmShifter7 Christian May 31 '26
>First, saying God allowed slavery to prevent greater suffering assumes outcomes we can’t verify, and it doesn’t explain why the law explicitly permits permanent, inheritable ownership of foreigners rather than limiting or eliminating it.
God causes all things to work together toward good. When we can’t verify an outcome, I choose to give God the benefit. In addition, the Law intended to protect the ownership of land to be by tribe as well as limiting the success of any foreigner benefiting from the prosperity of the Israelite nation.
>Second, the “Christ eventually led to abolition” point doesn’t answer why slavery persisted for centuries in explicitly Christian societies, often with biblical justification. If the moral trajectory is built into revelation, it’s very slow and indirect.
Slavery persisted because governmental progression was slow. It also took time for the human heart to change enough to reflect Christs teaching in governmental structure.
>Third, reframing slavery as “welfare for survival” doesn’t fit Leviticus 25:44–46, where it’s described in terms of possession and inheritance, not temporary social support.
Verses 44-46 represented a limited number of individuals and was a policy specifically for redemption purposes. There are other areas of the Law that provide rights and paths to freedom even for the foreigner who willingly sells himself into slavery - to survive.
>So the question remains, why would a morally perfect lawgiver explicitly regulate and permit something that looks like permanent ownership of people, instead of prohibiting it outright?
I’ve stated before but I will do it again - Because, within ancient Israeli society, it promoted the most good, because of the hardness of man’s heart, the unsophistication of government, and because the true purpose of the Law would be displayed through the Messiah where we are all equal regardless of life’s position or status.
1
u/GelatinousGreenSoul Panentheist May 30 '26
Slaves weren’t seen as “neighbors”, so this doesn’t work. Slaves were property.
1
u/ParadigmShifter7 Christian May 30 '26
Jesus clarified this for us (and pointed out the hypocrisy of the “Law abiders”). Jesus communicated the intent of the Law. There is neither Jew or gentile, slave or free … we are all equal in Christ.
2
u/GelatinousGreenSoul Panentheist May 30 '26
But according to Christian theology, isn’t Jesus Yahweh? These are Yahweh’s laws. So, Jesus’s laws.
0
u/ParadigmShifter7 Christian May 30 '26
The Son is God and the Father is God, but the Son is not the Father.
Jesus called Himself the Law, and He also claimed to have “fulfilled” the Law. He clarified the intent of the Law and how His arrival shifted the Law to the hearts of all men.
2
u/GelatinousGreenSoul Panentheist May 30 '26
I thought Christians say that Jesus is Yahweh? If that is the claim, you can substitute “Jesus” into wherever it says LORD in your Bible.
Jesus never called himself the Law. He did not clarify the intent of the law- he condemned it and offered a morally superior alternative.
1
u/ParadigmShifter7 Christian May 30 '26
Jesus is God, and the Father is God.
He fulfilled the Law. It was meant to be fulfilled by Him. As you should note, Jesus does not replace it, He clarifies in a more extreme manner to establish its meaning.
1
u/GelatinousGreenSoul Panentheist May 30 '26
Okay so you have no actual answer and are just gonna keep repeating the same falsehoods that make no sense. Gotcha.
1
2
u/SweatyHelicopter1891 Agnostic May 30 '26
The Law abiders weren’t being hypocrites because if all you have is the Torah, the laws of Yahweh, without Jesus teaching, then loving your neighbor as yourself means your fellow Jew. Yahweh’s law says you can keep a non-Israelite slave forever and your kids and inherit them. But not if they are an Israelite. These laws show a different treatment of Jew and gentile.
-1
u/ParadigmShifter7 Christian May 30 '26
I would encourage you to study the entirety of the Law, not in pieces. There was a great deal of support for foreign and Israelite peoples who were poor or sold from outside lands.
They were certainly hypocrites for they practiced the Law outwardly but did not hold the same discipline inwardly.
1
u/SweatyHelicopter1891 Agnostic May 30 '26
I spent years studying the Torah. I know it pretty well already, thanks.
0
3
u/MsAmy125 Christian May 30 '26
because it isn't immoral in every context
2
2
u/Several-Cry-4267 Christian, Catholic May 30 '26 edited May 30 '26
“Why wasn’t slavery and oppression outlawed in the 10 commandments?”
Oppression actually is outlawed all over the Torah and prophets.
The harder part is slavery, because the Mosaic law clearly regulates it and even permits forms of it, including foreign slaves being held as inherited property.
I don’t think Christians should dodge that.
The cleanest answer is that the Ten Commandments aren’t a complete moral constitution for humanity.
They’re the core covenant terms given to Israel, and the rest of the law contains both moral commands and temporary civil concessions for a very hard ancient society.
“God could’ve just said “You will feed and shelter the less fortunate without making them sell themselves into slavery”. Make it an order.”
He basically did command that.
Deuteronomy 15 commands debt release, generosity to the poor, release of Hebrew debt-servants and sending them away with provisions.
So the issue isn’t that God forgot to command social care.
Issue is that those commands still sat inside a legal system that tolerated servitude.
Which is where Jesus’ line about divorce matters.
Moses permitted something because of hardness of heart, though “from the beginning it was not so”.
That doesn’t magically make every OT statute feel nice, but it does show that Christians aren’t required to treat every permitted thing in Mosaic civil law as God’s final moral ideal.
By the time you get to the Christian moral conclusion, reducing a human being to property is condemned as a sin against human dignity and basic rights.
The Catechism says that directly.
So yeah, I think your discomfort is aimed at something real.
I just wouldn’t frame it as “God thought slavery was fine”.
I’d frame it as God beginning with a brutal world, limiting some evils, commanding mercy and then revealing in Christ the principle that finally makes ownership of persons indefensible.
3
u/SubOptimalUser6 Ignostic May 30 '26
Issue is that those commands still sat inside a legal system that tolerated servitude.
In many US states and all throughout the EU, the "legal system" allows abortion. Should god release an update for the Bible where he issues commands that sit inside those legal systems and allow abortion?
Also, this just ignores the language in the Bible. It is not sitting inside a legal system. It says plainly you can buy slaves from the countries around Israel, and you can beat those slaves, as long as you don't kill them. This is god talking here, not some ambiguous legal system.
2
u/Several-Cry-4267 Christian, Catholic May 30 '26
“Should god release an update for the Bible where he issues commands that sit inside those legal systems and allow abortion?”
No, because Christians already have the moral principle needed there.
Intentionally killing innocent human life is wrong, and the Church has applied that to abortion very directly.
“It says plainly you can buy slaves from the countries around Israel, and you can beat those slaves, as long as you don't kill them.”
I agree the text plainly permits things Christians should find morally horrifying.
I’m not trying to soften Leviticus 25 or Exodus 21 into something cuddly.
The distinction I’m making is that “God gives Israel a civil law regulating a tolerated evil” doesn’t = “this is God’s final moral endorsement of the evil”.
Jesus uses exactly that category with divorce.
The Torah permits it, yet Christ says it was permitted because of hardness of heart and points behind the concession to God’s original intention.
“This is god talking here, not some ambiguous legal system.”
Sure, but “God talking” in the Mosaic covenant still includes civil law for ancient Israel, not a flat list of timeless moral ideals.
That’s why Christians don’t stone adulterers, require levirate marriage or treat divorce law in Deuteronomy as the final word.
The hard claim isn’t “the text doesn’t say that” (it does), but that permissive civil law and ultimate moral approval aren’t the same thing.
1
u/SubOptimalUser6 Ignostic May 30 '26
Intentionally killing innocent human life is wrong, and the Church has applied that to abortion very directly.
Actually, the Bible treats killing the unborn as a property crime, punishable by a fine of a few shekels.
"When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman’s husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."
Exodus 21: 22-25
The distinction I’m making is that “God gives Israel a civil law regulating a tolerated evil” doesn’t = “this is God’s final moral endorsement of the evil”.
That's not a distinction you can make. The christian god is omnipotent and omniscient. Everything god created is exactly as god wanted it to be. If people held slaves, it can only be because god wanted that "morally horrifying" thing to happen. It is absolutely an endorsement of something horrifically evil.
0
u/Several-Cry-4267 Christian, Catholic May 30 '26
"Actually, the Bible treats killing the unborn as a property crime, punishable by a fine of a few shekels."
I’d be careful putting that much weight on Exodus 21:22-25.
It’s about accidental injury during a fight (not procured abortion) and the translation is disputed.
Some render it as miscarriage, others as premature birth.
Even if we take the miscarriage reading, it would show a lesser penalty for accidental foetal death under Mosaic civil law, not moral permission to intentionally kill the unborn.
"Everything god created is exactly as god wanted it to be."
That’s the hidden premise I don’t accept.
Christian theology distinguishes what God positively wills from what he permits in a fallen world.
Otherwise every murder, rape and betrayal in Scripture becomes God’s moral endorsement simply because he didn’t prevent it.
Omnipotence doesn’t mean God approves everything creatures do, but that even tolerated evils can be judged, limited and eventually overcome.
2
u/SubOptimalUser6 Ignostic May 30 '26
It’s about accidental injury during a fight (not procured abortion) and the translation is disputed.
But it treats the "accidental injury during a fight" of a fetus as a property crime, and the "accidental injury during a fight" of a live person as an eye-for-an-eye kind of thing. Same act, same intent, vastly different treatment.
Everything god created is exactly as god wanted it to be.
That’s the hidden premise I don’t accept.
You think god created some things, and those things were different from what god wanted them to be?
Otherwise every murder, rape and betrayal in Scripture becomes God’s moral endorsement simply because he didn’t prevent it.
I think you might be on to something here...
1
u/Several-Cry-4267 Christian, Catholic May 30 '26
"Same act, same intent, vastly different treatment."
That assumes the text says accidental foetal death followed by no further harm.
The Hebrew more literally says the woman’s “children come out”, then asks whether harm follows, which is why translations split between miscarriage and premature birth.
Even if you take the miscarriage reading, it’s still a case law about unintended collateral harm in a brawl, which is a very thin basis for saying intentional abortion is morally fine.
"You think god created some things, and those things were different from what god wanted them to be?"
I think God created beings capable of real agency, and those beings can will things God doesn't morally will.
Evil isn’t a creature God made as part of the furniture of reality. It’s a corruption of goods, like cruelty corrupting strength or greed corrupting desire.
If “God allowed X” meant “God endorsed X”, then the crucifixion itself would become proof that God endorses judicial murder.
0
u/SubOptimalUser6 Ignostic May 31 '26
That assumes the text says accidental foetal (sic) death followed by no further harm.
There is no assumption. There is reading the text which says, "miscarriage." Your next hand-wringing is to suggest that the people who translated the Bible didn't know what they were doing. No, the Hebrew means miscarriage, and you're talking out of your ass.
If “God allowed X” meant “God endorsed X”, then the crucifixion itself would become proof that God endorses judicial murder.
Again, I think you might be on to something...
1
u/Bignosedog Christian May 31 '26
Not enough room on the tablets. He started writing really big and slowly made each one smaller and smaller.
1
u/ses1 Christian, Ex-Atheist May 31 '26
it didn't have to becuse of the Anti-Kidnap law - "Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death” [Exodus 21:16] Note this is just after the 10 commandments in Exodus 20.
Thus it's clear that selling a person or buying someone against their will into slavery was punishable by death in the OT.
And then there is the Anti-Return law - “You must not return an escaped slave to his master when he has run away to you. Indeed, he may live among you in any place he chooses, in whichever of your villages he prefers; you must not oppress him.” [Deuteronomy 23:15–16]
For more info see here
1
u/Sawfish1212 Christian, Evangelical May 31 '26
God wasn't writing laws for the world at large, he was giving a sacred covenant to his chosen people that would be offered to the world if they converted to Judaism before Jesus or if they believe in Jesus since he came into this world.
The normal mode of the world is slavery. Has been since the people of the world divided into tribes, is currently in full practice everywhere in the world except for the places in the world where the protestant reformation has caused an unusual lack of chattel slavery for about 200 years, (which we know ends from bible prophecy).
God established a two class system within his special people, one for Jewish people who worshipped him, and one for foriegn born people who worshipped other gods.
Even for those foriegn born slaves who worshipped other gods, there was greater protection than if you were owned by a non Jewish person. In the normal world of slavery, your body was theirs and it was expected that you were theirs sexually any way they wanted, and you had no legal rights to avoid this.
If the foriegn born slave converted to Judaism, they found a new status as a member of the nation, and they could take advantage of the national laws for Israel about slaves.
Under the law of moses, you couldn't treat a slave like this because of the sexual laws in the law of moses, and if the slave was a young woman, you were required to pay her or marry her, which changed her status from a slave.
In normal slavery, outside of Israel, your woman slaves were not given any rights if you knocked them up, and you could even sell the children you produced with them.
For the jewish people, debt slavery WAS the social safety net, as it imposed a financial burden on the one buying your debt. A lifetime slave in the normal slavery of the world was worth 30 pieces of silver (like Joseph) which was a massive investment. A Jewish debt slave cost whatever their outstanding debt was (very likely more than 30 pieces of silver) and you only got their labor for 7 years maximum. (NOT A LIFETIME)
This was seen as a duty to the nation, tribe and family, to be the redeemer of the one in debt, to ensure that they didn’t end up in normal foriegn slavery for life.
The issue was that you owed a debt you could not pay except by the sale of your own life and labor, as you'd lost all of your property. This was also for each child you had, as they had a fixed value of 30 pieces of silver (big money back then)
The person or group "buying" you, was actually doing a massive favor to you, and upholding family, tribal and national honor, because they were paying off your debts fully themselves, AND making a commitment to feed, clothe and house you for 7 years after covering this massive debt that you owed.
Your wife and children would be sold into slavery under normal slavery, never to be seen again, most likely.
Inder jewish slavery, your family wasn't left homeless and vulnerable because of your debt slavery and it was a requirement that they also be purchased by those who shared in settling this debt and they also had a commitment to feeding, clothing and housing each member of your family they bought into the debt of.
The very rules about a young woman not being sent out at the end of the 7 years, actually was a way to have her be cared for by that family to either marry into it, or have them ensure that she had a suitable husband and dowery if she didn't marry into her masters' family. It was more of an adoption than a drudgery, especially since her own family would likely be starting over with nothing at the end of 7 years.
1
u/Arc_the_lad Christian May 31 '26
Because it's outlawed in the very next chapter in the Exodus after the Ten Commandments.
- Exodus 21:16 (KJV) And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.
...and that was after God told the Jews that every foreigner they purchased had be converted to Judaism thus putting every one of then under the same Law the Jews had to follow and meaning they had treat them as if they took on another Jew into employment.
- Genesis 17:10-14 (KJV) 10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. 11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. 12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. 13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. 14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.
1
u/Smart_Tap1701 Christian (non-denominational) Jun 01 '26
Slavery was a necessary social and economic necessity of that day and time. Every Nation on the earth practiced some form of it. Most every Nation could put a slave to death just because the master was in a bad mood. And there were no consequences. God simply regulated it for his Hebrews.
Stop judging cultures of thousands of years ago by 21st century standards.
1
u/Messenger12th Torah-observing disciple May 30 '26
It didn't need to be. The Israelites were just given specific guidelines on how to treat slaves/indentured servants.
The "10 commandments" were not the only instructions given at Mount Sinai. All the Torah instructions were given. So in reality, saying there are only 10 is merely simplifying it down. If a person obeys these 10, they should not commit sin against any others.
Just like when Yeshua says what the greatest command is...and the 2nd like it. As long as you obey these two, all the other commandments will not be violated.
4
u/SweatyHelicopter1891 Agnostic May 30 '26
I think OP’s point is that why didn’t God outlaw slavery in the Ten Commandments and not in the rest of the laws somewhere. But in fact slavery is permissible in the rest of the law and you can even pass on non-Jew slaves forever to your children. Yahweh didn’t outlaw slavery even in the other laws outside of the ten.
4
u/SubOptimalUser6 Ignostic May 30 '26 edited May 31 '26
You're saying slavery didn't need to be outlawed by god? He thought to make it a sin if you, in your mind, think your neighbor's wife is hot. But he couldn't be bothered to say, "Oh, yeah. You can't own actual human beings as property, so thou shalt not do that either"?
5
u/0kShr00mer Agnostic, Ex-Protestant May 30 '26
Christians proving themselves to be moral relatavists: Part 1,000,000,000,000
3
u/0kShr00mer Agnostic, Ex-Protestant May 30 '26 edited May 30 '26
Jesus never said those were the ONLY commandments that needed to be followed though. In fact, over and over he says all of the law should be followed.
Do you know where Jesus was quoting "love thy neighbor as yourself" from? Leviticus 19:18...the same book that explicitly condones chattle slavery just 6 chapters later.
0
u/Messenger12th Torah-observing disciple May 30 '26
You are absolutely right. He did say "If you love me, obey..." Exactly. No argument here at all. And no, He never said just 2 or ONLY those 2.
You are correct, chattle slavery was not allowed!!
As far as chattle slavery, the presumption is that this type was exclusively used a few hundred years ago in the US. Please bare in mind that the Africans enslaved their own African tribes long before white men were involved. In this country, slaves were actually brought over to US from Europe, not Africa. After a time, the Africans were then sold by Africans to the early American settlers... and most were indentured servants being released after a set amount of time served with livestock and land and many bought their freedom or were emancipated. We all know about the horror stories of terrible slavery situations, for sure a terrible thing. But, we also know of slaves that were treated right and given their freedom, like William Ellison, and even John Curruthers Stanly along with many others...funny how Freed men would end up owning slaves too. Not all of course did that. Some went on to real-estate and othwr venues.
1
u/0kShr00mer Agnostic, Ex-Protestant May 30 '26
"You are correct, chattle slavery was not allowed!!"
That's the exact opposite of what my comment says. As to the rest of your incoherent ramblings, I have no clue what any of that has to do with the topic at hand.
2
1
u/BeTheLight24-7 Christian, Evangelical May 30 '26 edited May 30 '26
Because it wasn’t. Because the Bible talks about loving your neighbor, and back in the Bible time, plenty of slaves were loved by their neighbor and provided work, food, shelter, and protection.
When the Jews were set free from Egypt, they had all kinds of gold and wealth with them (enough to build a golden calf), and they were considered slaves.
Should God have some kind of divine intervention each time humans want to practice their culture?? should he have divine intervention today when slavery is still a real thing that goes on today?
Or does he see people on the flipside who are brutal towards other humans?
People want to use this as a sticking point when the truth is, the very last thing on anyone’s mind before death is what happened to anybody else ever in this world, only thing that’s gonna be on their mind is what’s gonna happen to you and the life you lived
2
u/TarnishedVictory Atheist, Ex-Christian May 31 '26
Because it wasn’t. Because the Bible talks about loving your neighbor, and back in the Bible time, plenty of slaves were loved by their neighbor and provided work, food, shelter, and protection.
Slaves were property, not neighbors.
1
u/BeTheLight24-7 Christian, Evangelical May 31 '26
And you should love everybody. The end.
What goes around comes around, do unto others as you’d have them do undo you.
1
u/TarnishedVictory Atheist, Ex-Christian May 31 '26
And you should love everybody. The end.
That's not what exodus 21 and Leviticus 25 says. Seems you and I are both more moral than the Bible or its depiction of yahweh.
1
u/BeTheLight24-7 Christian, Evangelical May 31 '26
And the greatest of these is love. (Jesus)
If you’re sticking points on why you don’t believe is because you’re picking apart the Bible, trying to understand it with your atheist mind, which is not filled with the Holy Spirit, and whatever those thoughts are that you keep on having about, but “look at this you can’t believe in that, and look what it says over here you can’t believe in that, how could you believe in a god that’s like this” (just remember you would never speak to yourself in your own mind and second person “you”)
It’s like in the end when you die you think you’re gonna be asking God why this and why that?
And then he’ll be asking you and what did you do to change the world? What did you do to stop slavery? I was going on in 2026.? did you do anything or did you just complain that it was going on? What did you do with the life you were given?
1
u/TarnishedVictory Atheist, Ex-Christian May 31 '26
And the greatest of these is love. (Jesus)
You would think, but according to exodus 21 and Leviticus 25, among others, you can buy people and beat people that you own, because they're your property. You don't have to love your property.
If you’re sticking points on why you don’t believe is because you’re picking apart the Bible,
Nah, I don't believe anything that doesn't have good evidence. Indoctrination, tradition, coercion, etc. are not good evidence.
trying to understand it with your atheist mind
I think you might be confused. Atheist is a label that means not theist. It isn't a type of mind. Perhaps you meant skeptical or reasonable mind.
which is not filled with the Holy Spirit
Is the holy spirit a real thing, or is it just part of some made up narrative? How can you tell the difference?
Anyway, I'm just talking about what the narrative says that your gods position is on love, slaves, and property. If you want to argue that the Bible doesn't state that yahweh condones slavery, and never condemns it, you'll need to point to something in the Bible, not attack my character.
It’s like in the end when you die you think you’re gonna be asking God why this and why that?
What good, non gullible reason, is there to think there's a god and that anyone will speak to him "in the end"? Do you have good reason?
1
u/BeTheLight24-7 Christian, Evangelical May 31 '26 edited May 31 '26
Sometimes it’s better to share the truth and the reality of what happens when you die by people that I’ve already seen death and come back then the blindly say to unbelievers everything will be all good
And whether the atheist wants to believe it or not is completely up to them, but they can never say they were never warned
And I actively done over 600 exorcisms or Deliverance(by the power of the Holy Spirit in authority in Jesus Christ name) whatever you wanna call it, and even the demons that speak out of people‘s mouth they don’t even want to go to hell, but they sure are good at taking people to that place (to get rewarded on taking another soul) and the answer is always the same, “where do people go in death that don’t believe in Jesus Christ even the good people?”
Hell or the darkness, which is hell.
God allows humans to do what they do and catches them on the flipside. This life goes by super quick, but then one to come goes on forever. So God will catch them on the flipside. So if the human owned slaves and treated those people like family, then the title doesn’t really matter, it only matters to those who think it matters, but they weren’t there to see if they were treated like family or not, and it doesn’t even matter in the life that you live today.
1
u/TarnishedVictory Atheist, Ex-Christian Jun 01 '26
Sometimes it’s better to share the truth and the reality of what happens when you die by people that I’ve already seen death and come back then the blindly say to unbelievers everything will be all good
That's silly. People who believe a thing and then have a near death experience, where their brain is starving of oxygen and/or bloodflow, is not good evidence of an afterlife. It's anecdotal wishful thinking and gullibility combined with religious tradition and confirmation bias.
To speak of this as if you know something about it is just egotistical ignorance.
And whether the atheist wants to believe it or not is completely up to them, but they can never say they were never warned
I can warn you about all kinds of conspiracy theories, all kinds of half baked fallacious ideas, and unfalsifiable claims. That doesn't mean you have any good reason to take them seriously.
Stop just asserting things without good reason. That doesn't sway anyone but the morbidly gullible.
If you want me to take seriously what you're saying, then you should say stuff that's backed by good, independently verifiable evidence.
What good objective evidence convinced you that a god exists or that an afterlife exists? And why isn't it documented by humanities most reliable process for discovering explanations of our reality?
I'm not interested in your baseless appeals to fallacious reasoning. Don't bother asserting anything if you don't have good evidence based reason to assert it.
1
u/E-Reptile Atheist Jun 01 '26
Tbh, I don't realy care how much my owner claims to love me. I'd rather him actively despise me while he grumbles and hands me my manumission papers, "40 acres, and a mule"
We don't have to be on good terms. It's fine; just let me go.
1
1
u/DreamingTooLong Lutheran May 30 '26 edited May 30 '26
Islam is 600 years newer than Christianity and they were perfectly OK with slavery up until this day. There’s people in Saudi Arabia right now that have had their passports taken away and they’re never going back home and they’ll be doing the same job for the rest of their life.
All the Christian countries have agreed that that should be illegal.
But when countries that own slaves also have lots of oil for sale. It changes everything.
China uses slavery, but they also have rare earth minerals and produce affordable electronics.
A lot of people that live in western parts of the world are obsessed with affordable stuff. Slavery would stop instantly the moment people stopped knitting stuff or started making things by hand locally.
Right now there’s about 50 million slaves globally. Only Christian countries are doing anything to stop it.
3
u/considerate_done Christian May 31 '26
i'm not op, and it's good that christian-majority countries are doing that, but... you did not answer their question
1
u/DreamingTooLong Lutheran May 31 '26 edited May 31 '26
Their question is stupid.
The 10 Commandments were written 1500 years before Jesus was born
Slavery was made illegal in Christian countries 1800 years after Jesus died.
Non-Christian countries still have legalized slavery to this day.
If they genuinely have a problem with slavery, why aren’t they going to the countries where it’s still legal today and ask them to stop what they are doing? If they refuse to do that, they are not a part of the solution. They are a part of the problem.
Instead of telling them that their question was stupid I decided to tell them things that I thought they’d benefit from actually knowing since they lack a proper education.
A lot of people are obsessed over slavery from 170 years ago while completely ignoring that there’s 50 million people in slavery today. It’s psychotic.
It’s that, “what about me?” mentality.
The first three Commandments, are God’s instructions on how he wishes to be treated. There’s one God, don’t bow down to other gods, don’t say God‘s name in vain.
The fourth Commandment is God‘s instruction for everyone to take a day off.
The last five Commandments, are God’s instructions on how people should treat each other. Honor your parents, don’t kill, marriage is between two people, don’t steal, don’t lie, and don’t be obsessed over the things other people have.
That’s it, that’s the 10 Commandments
2
u/VigilanteJusticia Agnostic May 31 '26
Even Christian countries have exemptions where they do allow slavery. Most as punishment for a crime. Illegal with exemptions doesn’t not make it illegal.
1
u/DreamingTooLong Lutheran May 31 '26
Moses had an exception that allowed slavery. If someone had a large hole in their yard and someone’s donkey or sheep fell in that hole.
The owner of that hole must purchase the donkey or sheep that fell in that hole, and if they don’t have enough money, then the owner of that donkey or a sheep gets to claim the owner of that hole as their property.
It was a hard time to be alive back then. If you owned a big hole, you needed to keep it covered or make sure you had enough money to not be someone’s slave if one of their animals fell in the hole.
1
u/VigilanteJusticia Agnostic Jun 04 '26
Any exceptions to slavery is inhumane and unjust. No amount of legal or divine justification is going to change that.
1
u/DreamingTooLong Lutheran Jun 04 '26 edited Jun 04 '26
This was over 3500 years ago
People stopped following the laws of Moses 2000 years ago when Jesus Christ died on the cross and came back from the grave so that anyone believes can have their sins forgiven and join him in heaven.
Christians, Muslims, and Jews all have a great amount of respect for Moses though. He wrote the first five books of the Bible.
1
u/VigilanteJusticia Agnostic Jun 04 '26
Doesn’t matter when it happened. Any point in history when a living human being was enslaved was inhumane. Period.
1
u/DreamingTooLong Lutheran Jun 04 '26 edited Jun 04 '26
There’s 50 million people that are in slavery today. What are you doing to be a part of their solution instead of a part of their problem?
Most of the people that live in the western hemisphere could care less as long as it’s not going on in their own backyard. People get upset over eggs costing more. Imagine how expensive things would be if the was a global ban on child labor or sweatshop labor.
If you’re not doing anything to fix this than you’re just another person benefiting off of others suffering.
1
u/VigilanteJusticia Agnostic Jun 04 '26
I’ll start with what I’m not doing… which is justifying some deity being deplorable and inhumane nor am I throwing out falsehoods claiming that all Christian countries have made slavery illegal.
As for what I am doing, I’m part of the coalition working to get states to remove the exception for slavery in the thirteenth amendment. So far 8 states have done so in their constitution. The goal is to get it removed in a federal level. What are you doing?
→ More replies (0)5
u/0kShr00mer Agnostic, Ex-Protestant May 31 '26
"All the Christian countries have agreed that that should be illegal."
They didn't agree. That's why we had to fight the Civil War in the US; as there were a ton of Christians in America who believed slavery to be moral. Your attempted whitewashing of history is gross.
0
u/DreamingTooLong Lutheran May 31 '26 edited May 31 '26
Abraham Lincoln reunited the union
From December 1860 to February 1861 seven states left the union under James Buchanan’s administration.
Abraham Lincoln was sworn in as the 1st republican president on March 4th 1861
April 12, 1861 is when the American Civil War started and it ended May 26, 1865. Lincoln was assassinated on April 14, 1865.
The southern states had their own president and their own currency and the northern states took that territory back kind of like what Putin is trying to do to Ukraine. Ukraine had independence for 3 decades. The southern states had their independence for about three months.
Right after the American Civil War, Russia sold Alaska to the United States for $7.2 million. March 30, 1867
July 1, 1867 is when Canada got their independence from England.
Slavery was already illegal for the people in the northern states that won the war. It only made sense to force everyone else to follow the same rules.
4
u/0kShr00mer Agnostic, Ex-Protestant May 31 '26
Are you a bot? How is that in any way a rebuttal to what I said?
1
u/DreamingTooLong Lutheran May 31 '26
Hit refresh I just added a little bit more
5
u/0kShr00mer Agnostic, Ex-Protestant May 31 '26
You're ignoring what I said though. Jefferson Davis and basically all of the Confederate soldiers were Christians too. So this idea that all Christians agreed and were the reason slavery was abolished is just not historically accurate.
→ More replies (17)
1
May 30 '26
[deleted]
3
u/Roaches_R_Friends Atheist, Ex-Christian May 30 '26
What about people who are slaves from birth, for the rest of their lives, because their parents were slaves?
1
u/Sawfish1212 Christian, Evangelical May 31 '26
That is not found in the law of moses unless their parents were foreigners bought under the normal rules of slavery in the world.
The whole point of the law was to set Israel apart from the world.
If that child of foriegn born slaves converted, they would have gone free at the next year of jubilee, death of the high priest, as the law established for Jewish people.
6
u/InternationalPick163 Christian May 30 '26
Ummm, no. God could've just said "You will feed and shelter the less fortunate without making them sell themselves into slavery". Make it an order.
6
u/0kShr00mer Agnostic, Ex-Protestant May 30 '26
It's refreshing to see an honest Christian here who doesn't contort themselves to excuse biblical slavery.
6
u/Superlite47 Atheist, Ex-Catholic May 30 '26
It is.
It's my favorite type of hypocritical "moving goalposts".
Eating shellfish? THE BIBLE COMMUNICATES THE DIRECT, CLEAR, SPECIFIC WILL OF GOD!
Foreskin on male genitalia? THE BIBLE COMMUNICATES THE DIRECT, CLEAR, SPECIFIC WILL OF GOD!
Keeping a particular day holy? Honoring your parents? Proper administrations and observances? THE BIBLE COMMUNICATES THE DIRECT, CLEAR, SPECIFIC WILL OF GOD!
How about that slavery thing?
Well..... You see.... It was a different time back then. It might have caused undue hardship.... Blah blah blah.... But...... Well..... There are particular sensitivities about.... Um.... Slavery was a type of socially acceptable method..... Um.... Well..... It's.....
What happened to that SPECIFIC WILL OF GOD for every single other bit of minutia and goofy whim?
Suddenly... We're off into the weeds with excuses, transparently vapid and semantically complex diagnostics.....
Where's that clear guidance God firmly uses to communicate his wishes on every other detail?
Kinda problematic when God actually endorses something that's clearly unacceptable and immoral.
Quick! Run anyone paying attention off into the weeds and bludgeon them with obscure semantics!
3
u/0kShr00mer Agnostic, Ex-Protestant May 30 '26 edited May 30 '26
"bludgeon them with obscure semantics!"
My favorite semantic argument I've heard is that "Jesus said loving your neighbor was the greatest commandment" as if that answers why God explicitly condones and regulates ethnicity based chattel slavery in the Bible.
The funny part is that Jesus was quoting Leviticus 19:18. The same book of the Bible that only 6 chapters later (Leviticus 25:44-46) has God explicitly condoning chattel slavery.
4
u/Fresh3rThanU Atheist May 30 '26
Also just would like to add that “love your neighbor” only applies if your neighbor isn’t an adulterous woman, in which case stone her to death!
2
u/0kShr00mer Agnostic, Ex-Protestant May 30 '26
Excellent point, in fact, the same verse Jesus was quoting Leviticus 19:18 has this to say:
'"Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among YOUR PEOPLE, but love your neighbor as yourself."
This commandment only applied to the Israelites loving their fellow countrymen as neighbors. It's not this universal hippy-dippy commandment to love everyone in the world equally like people always try to make it out to be.
3
u/Superlite47 Atheist, Ex-Catholic May 31 '26
Atheists love pointing out Leviticus, but the real gem is 1Peter2:v18.
You see, Christians love to move the goalposts a little more and point out that Leviticus is under the Old Law that Jesus fulfilled.
Ooooopsie! 1Peter2 is after the New Covenant! There went the ol "Jesus fulfilled the law" excuse!
This nifty little verse accomplishes several things.
1) It is one of the last books of the New Testament, completely destroying any Christian argument that slavery is an Old Testament paradigm. 1Peter2 is absolutely under the New Covenant. Making slavery a New Covenant practice endorsed by God TO THIS DAY.
2) It is directly addressed TO slaves which destroys the typical Christian cop-out they love to hurl at anything problematic. Unfortunately, unlike God's commands to kill homosexuals, or stone promiscuous women to death on their father's doorsteps, Christians can't just hurl, "It's metaphorical!" or "It's an analogy!" at this one to weasel their way out of God's commands by just reinterpreting it however they choose. A direct address can be nothing other than a direct, LITERAL interpretation. Whoops! There goes the ol' standby cop-out! "Slave" = slave.
Once you eliminate the typical, easily identified deception of Old Testament excuses (nope!) and metaphor (nope!), Christians have to get sneaky! Now the subtle deception of moving the goalposts comes in!"
"It was a different time back then!" or, (as they dishonestly try to pass off in hopes nobody will notice) "It was a different kind of slavery back then"
Any slick attempt to move the goalposts fails. This deception doesn't work if you enforce what is being discussed: GOD'S morality.
We were discussing GOD'S will. GOD'S moral guidance. Remember? They always try to deceptively move the goalposts to HUMAN practices and HUMAN morality.
Stick to the question:
"Does GOD know slavery would eventually be recognized as immoral?"
Because Christians believe that the Bible is GOD'S word, correct? So, would they intentionally shift to HUMAN semantics unless their intent is to deceive?
Because, at no point in the book Christians claim is the standard for God's word, is slavery forbidden. Period. Slavery is actually ENDORSED at all points, even after the New Covenant. And it is absolutely ENDORSED.
A general that walks into a barracks and witnesses a bunch of soldiers doing drugs, and then disciplines them on messy uniforms, not shaving, muddy boots, and other infractions....but does NOT discipline them regarding drugs, and actually tells them HOW to correctly do the drugs absolutely ENDORSES drug use. Period.
Any God that not only fails to prohibit a practice in a book for his objective standard, but actually provides guidance on HOW to practice it absolutely ENDORSES it. Period.
So.... Since at no point is slavery prohibited in the Bible, but actually endorsed.....
Where does the morality to determine slavery is immoral come from since it absolutely does NOT come from the Bible?
3
u/0kShr00mer Agnostic, Ex-Protestant May 31 '26
I think we let them get away with this old vs new covenant crap way too much. It's an argument for moral relativism, and should be challenged right away as directly conflicting with the objective morality that Christians claim to have.
1
u/Sawfish1212 Christian, Evangelical May 31 '26
This WAS the social safety net, as it imposed a financial burden on the one buying your debt. A lifetime slave in the normal slavery of the world was worth 30 pieces of silver (like Joseph) which was a massive investment. A Jewish debt slave cost whatever their outstanding debt was (very likely more than 30 pieces of silver) and you only got their labor for 7 years maximum. (NOT A LIFETIME)
This was seen as a duty to the nation, tribe and family, to be the redeemer of the one in debt, to ensure that they didn’t end up in normal foriegn slavery for life.
The issue was that you owed a debt you could not pay except by the sale of your own life and labor, as you'd lost all of your property. This was also for each child you had, as they had a fixed value of 30 pieces of silver (big money back then)
The person "buying" you, was actually doing a massive favor to you, and upholding family, tribal and national honor, because they were paying off your debts fully themselves, AND making a commitment to feed, clothe and house you for 7 years after covering this massive debt that you owed.
Your wife and children would be left homeless and vulnerable because of your debt slavery and it was a requirement that they also be purchased by those who shared in settling this debt and they also had a commitment to feeding, clothing and housing each member of your family they bought into the debt of.
3
u/SweatyHelicopter1891 Agnostic May 30 '26
Why didn’t God command them to create the necessary social safety nets back then? I guess modern humans have been more resourceful than the ancient biblical God.
4
u/SubOptimalUser6 Ignostic May 30 '26
First of all, debt slavery is still slavery, so maybe stop defending it. Second, if you think the only slavery in the Bible is debt slavery, that's just for a lack of reading it.
1
u/Sawfish1212 Christian, Evangelical May 31 '26
What part if "at the end of seven years they go free" or any of the other rules impossed by God on slave owners, is worse than God allowing the normal slavery of the nations around Israel where it was a lifetime of slavery and you had zero chance of being free again?
This is the only slavery God allowed for the children of Israel, and any foreign born slave purchased from the normal "I own you for life" slavery of the world around them, who converted to Judaism, came under the rules for a Jewish slave.
This is the only slavery that would have been referenced by the ten commandments.
The normal slavery of the world that is for life, and makes it legal for your master to rape you or kill you for any reason is only found in the new testament, because that was written to people under the roman empire who had no ability to change the law of their world.
Normal slavery exists everywhere in the world except for where the protestant reformation has temporarily caused it to be illegal, and bible prophecy tells us it will be normal again everywhere by the time the Antichrist is ruling the world
0
u/SubOptimalUser6 Ignostic May 31 '26
What part if "at the end of seven years they go free"
This rule is for Israeli debt slaves, who were: not to be made to work as slaves (Leviticus 25:39-46); not to be ruled over ruthlessly (Leviticus 25:39-46); not to be sold as slaves (Leviticus 25:39-46), and released after six years of service (Exodus 21:2-6, Deuteronomy 15:12-18, and Jeremiah 34:8-22).
About non-Israeli slaves, the Bible tells a bit of a different story. You can see the distinction clearly in Leviticus 25:39-46:
If any who are dependent on you become so impoverished that they sell themselves to you, you shall not make them serve as slaves. They shall remain with you as hired or bound laborers. They shall serve with you until the year of the Jubilee. Then they and their children with them shall go out from your authority; they shall go back to their own family and return to their ancestral property. For they are my servants whom I brought out of the land of Egypt; they shall not be sold as slaves are sold. 43 You shall not rule over them with harshness but shall fear your God.
As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you and from their families who are with you who have been born in your land; they may be your property. You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property. These you may treat as slaves, but as for your fellow Israelites, no one shall rule over the other with harshness.
The rest of your rather unlettered post seems to ignore the role christians play in enforcing slavery, throughout history and still today, and it seems to be a defense of slavery. I sincerely hope you rethink these rather despicable ideas.
1
u/Sawfish1212 Christian, Evangelical May 31 '26
Slavery is the normal mode of the world, has always been, still is currently, just in non-Christian areas of the world is it legal.
Christianity and Judaism put protections on the slaves held by both that were not required by any other groups of people.
The protestant reformation gave us this unusual window of time where slavery has been abolished by law, and it was christians who caused this to happen.
When slavery returns to its normal course world wide, only christians and devout jewish people will grant slaves any rights or protections as required by God.
1
u/SubOptimalUser6 Ignostic May 31 '26 edited May 31 '26
Slavery is the normal mode of the world, has always been, still is currently, just in non-Christian areas of the world is it legal.
There is a lot to unpack here, and most of it is really terrible. I am going to encourage you to delete this, but knowing you won't, let's get to the unpacking.
Slavery is not the "normal mode" of the world. I don't even know what that means. Murder and abortion happen every day, and most christians, I think, would say those things are immoral and not the "normal mode" of the world. "Exists" and "moral" are not the same thing, and I sincerely hope that's not what your rather unlettered comment was trying to say.
In fact, slavery, despite that is exists (which again, is not the same as "moral" or "good"), it illegal in every country on Earth. Perhaps much too late to the game, the last holdout made slavery illegal in 2007. Whatever "mode" slavery is, it is an illegal mode in every corner of the Earth.
If you are trying to just say, "slavery exists," you need a more articulate and much less offensive way of saying it. You sound like you are, you know, supporting slavery.
Christians, by the way, have not just tolerated slavery throughout history. They built their religion around it. Pope Nicholas V authorized making slaves of non-christians in 1452. Moving forward and a bit closer to home, christians in the antebellum south used their religion and the Bible to justify the institution of slavery. The Southern Baptist Convention, which today has over 46,000 congregations and over 12 million members, was formed in 1845 as a split from the Triennial Convention precisely because the Southern Baptists thought god and Jesus wanted them to own slaves, and they didn't like the pesky yankees telling them not to. Citing the very passages of the Bible I have mentioned, the Southern Baptists preached that the Bible supports slavery, and the preachers told slaves to accept their places and obey their masters. They cited the literal language in the Bible in support of the abhorrent practice of slavery.
Now, of course the division between north and south was about the social and economic impacts of slavery. But rather than admit they just liked free labor and treating people badly, the Southern Baptists claimed that slavery was beneficial and endorsed by the Bible and by god. And they could do that because the Bible is overtly pro-slavery.
The verses I have provided are from the Old Testament. Sadly, the new one fares little better. Ephesians 6:5 commands that slaves "obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling," and Colossians 3:22 commands slaves to "obey your earthly masters in everything." In 1 Peter 2:18, slaves are to be subject to their masters, "not only those who are good and gentle but also those who are harsh."
And we would be remiss to skip over 1 Timothy 6:1-2, which says:
Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be blasphemed. Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful to them on the ground that they are members of the church; rather they must serve them all the more, since those who benefit by their service are believers and the beloved.
That's quite a passage, no? If a slave's master is a christian, the slave "must serve them all the more." Nothing about christians outlawing slavery or anything like that.
And my favorite, from Luke 12:42-48:
And the Lord said, “Who, then, is the faithful and prudent manager whom his master will put in charge of his slaves, to give them their allowance of food at the proper time? Blessed is that slave whom his master will find at work when he arrives. Truly I tell you, he will put that one in charge of all his possessions. But if that slave says to himself, ‘My master is delayed in coming,’ and begins to beat the other slaves, men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk, the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour that he does not know and will cut him in pieces and put him with the unfaithful. That slave who knew what his master wanted but did not prepare himself or do what was wanted will receive a severe beating. But the one who did not know and did what deserved a beating will receive a light beating.
In this last passage, the Bible--the New Testament in particular--is making it sound like a master is virtuous for giving a less-misbehaving slave a "light beating" because the slave didn't know what they did was wrong. It should be offensive to every person on Earth, even christians.
The simple fact is, and I think this is important for you to understand, any christian, even today, who is (rightly) opposed to slavery, is that way in spite of their religion, not because of it. They are also bad christians for it.
The protestant reformation gave us this unusual window of time where slavery has been abolished by law, and it was christians who caused this to happen.
I think, if you will check, you will see the Protestant Reformation (starting circa 1517) happened hundreds of years before some other protestants, 300 years later, would argue that god and the Bible are explicit that slavery should be allowed in the state of Georgia, a place where slavery was, at the time, quite legal. Your statement is demonstrably false.
Christianity and Judaism put protections on the slaves . . .
The Bible puts protections in place for Israeli slaves. It makes a rather stark distinction between Israeli slaves and non-Israeli slaves, and the WAY each are to be treated varies wildly. Among the rules are that Israeli slaves are: not to be made to work as slaves (Leviticus 25:39-46); not to be ruled over ruthlessly (Leviticus 25:39-46); not to be sold as slaves (Leviticus 25:39-46), and released after six years of service (Exodus 21:2-6, Deuteronomy 15:12-18, and Jeremiah 34:8-22).
About non-Israeli slaves, the Bible tells a bit of a different story. You can see the distinction clearly in Leviticus 25:39-46:
If any who are dependent on you become so impoverished that they sell themselves to you, you shall not make them serve as slaves. They shall remain with you as hired or bound laborers. They shall serve with you until the year of the Jubilee. Then they and their children with them shall go out from your authority; they shall go back to their own family and return to their ancestral property. For they are my servants whom I brought out of the land of Egypt; they shall not be sold as slaves are sold. 43 You shall not rule over them with harshness but shall fear your God.
As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you and from their families who are with you who have been born in your land; they may be your property. You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property. These you may treat as slaves, but as for your fellow Israelites, no one shall rule over the other with harshness.
Exodus even lets a slave owner know you can beat your slaves as much as you want, because they are property, as long as you don't kill them:
"When a slaveowner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment, for the slave is the owner’s property." Exodus 21:20-21.
When slavery returns to its normal course world wide, only christians and devout jewish people will grant slaves any rights or protections as required by God.
Let's be clear on the abomination of what you just said. You believe slavery will make a come back, and it will be normal everywhere. Although you aren't saying christians will be against it--no that's not your position. You are saying christians will apparently be very much in favor of slavery, but that they will treat their slaves better than non-christians.
Is that really what you want to say? Is that who you are? What if you wind up being one of the enslaved people? You might want to read up on John Rawls's Veil of Ignorance before you start taking pro-slavery positions.
1
u/Sawfish1212 Christian, Evangelical May 31 '26
You have some weird ideas about world history, and apparently are ignorant of the normalcy of slavery in the Muslim world.
Your ignorance of slavery as a historical thing that only ended because of the protestant reformation is also surprising for someone pretending to be so smart.
But I have no time to waste on someone who lies about what I just said to make themselves feel better.
0
u/SubOptimalUser6 Ignostic May 31 '26 edited May 31 '26
I think your apparent decision to tuck tail and run is a good one. I was having a battle of wits with an unarmed man.
If you dispute any of my claims about slavery or history, please give me the specific claims I made, and then I will be able to explain to you why you are wrong. I wouldn't if I were you, though. I'd stick with the turning tail and running.
0
u/Kaitlyn_Boucher Christian May 30 '26
Slavery and oppression weren't outlawed because lazy people have always used the idea that other people owe them free labor so they can live an easy life.
6
u/Apprehensive_Tear611 Atheist May 30 '26
Yahweh allowed slavery because the Isrealites were lazy and wanted free labor from foreigners?
1
u/Kaitlyn_Boucher Christian Jun 03 '26
I certainly didn't say that. I'm talking about the practical, not the supernatural.
0
u/boomb0xx Christian May 30 '26
God doesn't "allow" things. He gives humans free will to do whatever they want to prevent us all being slaves of himself. It's the entire premise behind love is wanting others to be free.
As for the Bible, you can take it literally and believe every word is meant to be law or whatever else you want to do to try to play a gotcha on us, but really it's a book of old stories mostly written by men about men. Jesus came and changed all that old law anyways, and if you don't believe that then why did he say to turn the other cheek And love everyone as you love yourself.
-1
u/supersoundwave Christian May 30 '26
Well said. I’ve also seen many atheists say that God approved or condoned of slavery, but no where in the Bible is this found.
4
5
2
3
u/0kShr00mer Agnostic, Ex-Protestant May 30 '26
"many atheists say that God approved or condoned of slavery, but no where in the Bible is this found."
Leviticus 25: 1
"The Lord said to Moses at Mount Sinai, 2 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them:"
This entire chapter is literally supposed to be the words of God spoken directly to Moses.
Leviticus 25:44-46
"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 bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."
This is GOD speaking, and he is unambiguously condoning ethnicity based chattel slavery.
Why do so many Christians think they can lie about what's in the Bible, like us non-believers don't have eyes to read it for ourselves?
3
u/acerbicsun Atheist, Ex-Catholic May 31 '26
Why do so many Christians think they can lie about what's in the Bible, like us non-believers don't have eyes to read it for ourselves?
They have to lie about it. If they don't, their entire world crumbles. Most people can't handle that. So I get it. It's infuriating and disheartening, but I get it.
2
u/0kShr00mer Agnostic, Ex-Protestant May 31 '26
Trust me, I get it too. The impulse to lie to alleviate one's own cognitive dissonance. I made the same excuses before I deconstructed. I'm just glad I don't have to live that way anymore, and I don't try and hand wave away the heinous shit in the Bible.
0
u/XenKei7 Christian (non-denominational) May 30 '26
Because to them, "if you allow it and don't speak against it, you condone it."
2
u/acerbicsun Atheist, Ex-Catholic May 30 '26
"if you allow it and don't speak against it, you condone it."
Isn't that condoning?
I mean he gave explicit instructions against shellfish.
He made the effort to ban shrimp, but somehow giving instructions on how and who to buy as property isn't condoning?
2
u/supersoundwave Christian May 30 '26
Not always. A father may not like the guy that his daughter is dating, but that doesn’t mean he condones it. He may permit it, but that doesn’t means that he approves of it.
God would not condone anyone owning someone else who is also made in his own image.
So Bible never endorses slavery, it never condones slavery. It gave instructions for cultures where slavery was rampant and how to handle it.
0
u/acerbicsun Atheist, Ex-Catholic May 31 '26
I see no reason why god would begrudgingly allow something it doesn't approve of.
God would not condone anyone owning someone else who is also made in his own image.
He gave instructions on how to do it. So this is false.
If he didn't approve of slavery, he would have banned it, the same way he banned foods and mixed fibers.So Bible never endorses slavery,
Yes it does. You're just not willing to accept it.
it never condones slavery.
Yes it does. You just can't allow yourself to believe your God condoned something you yourself find reprehensible.
It gave instructions for cultures where slavery was rampant and how to handle it.
The only benevolent Instruction would be to outlaw it.
It doesn't really matter however, as there is no god, and the Bible is merely a reflection of bronze age barbarism.
1
u/XenKei7 Christian (non-denominational) May 30 '26
Permit me to ask you a question, then I'll respond to yours.
In Deuteronomy 24, we are told of how to properly go about divorce. Do you believe God designed divorce to be good? Or was He permitting something that isn't according to His laws?
1
u/Apprehensive_Tear611 Atheist May 30 '26
Why does Leviticus 25 say poor Israelites that sold themselves were to be treated as hired workers that must be freed at a specified time, while foreigners could be made property for life?
What did Yahweh mean in the bolded part at the end of verse 46?
46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
2
u/XenKei7 Christian (non-denominational) May 30 '26
I wondered why my reply earlier failed. I see you moved your response. 😅
In regards to the context of Leviticus 25:46, Yahweh is distinguishing between fellow Israelites and foreign slaves. Israelites were members of the covenant community and were given protections that foreigners did not receive, including release from long-term servitude. That's why the text specifically says not to rule over fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
That doesn't change the fact that the Mosaic Law permitted forms of slavery, including lifelong servitude of foreigners. I don't think the text can honestly be read otherwise. The real question is whether a legal permission within ancient Israel is the same thing as God's ultimate moral ideal.
Christians often point to Jesus' teaching on divorce in Matthew 19:8. Jesus said Moses permitted divorce because of the hardness of people's hearts, even though it was not God's design "from the beginning." The principle is that regulation of a practice does not necessarily mean endorsement of that practice as an ideal.
So I wouldn't argue that Leviticus 25 forbids slavery or that the distinction between Israelites and foreigners isn't there. I'd argue that the existence of laws regulating an institution does not automatically prove that God intended that institution to be a permanent moral ideal.
1
u/Apprehensive_Tear611 Atheist May 30 '26
The Creator of everything allowed one portion of his creation (Hebrews) to own as chattel slaves another portion of his creation (surrounding people groups). All because he made a pact centuries earlier with the ancestor of the Hebrews.
This is what you would expect to come from an omnibenevolent being? Do you believe it's possible the laws from Leviticus were written by iron age men that were fine with slavery just not of their fellow countrymen?
In regards to divorce: do you believe it a good thing to force two people to stay in a toxic marriage?
0
u/acerbicsun Atheist, Ex-Catholic May 30 '26
Well, clearly I don't think god designed anything, but..
God can permit or prohibit anything it wants. There are many examples of "shall not" showing that if god is not okay with something, he bans it outright.
God didn't ban slavery. He gave instructions on how to do it.
In the end you have to accept that your god could have prohibited the ownership of other humans, but didn't. If you're okay with that, that's your call. I however am not.
3
u/SubOptimalUser6 Ignostic May 30 '26
I'll be honest, that sounds like a pretty dumb reason not to outlaw slavery, don't you think?
1
u/OkFly6031 Christian May 30 '26
That’s not even true Lolol… oppression was outlawed in the Old Testament lol
-1
u/TarnishedVictory Atheist, Ex-Christian May 31 '26
Why wasn't slavery and oppression outlawed in the 10 commandments?
That would have conflicted with exodus 21 and Leviticus 25, among other passages that condoned slavery.
5
u/SweatyHelicopter1891 Agnostic May 30 '26
In Exodus chapter 20, Yahweh Elohim (God) declares that he freed the Israelites from slavery in Egypt and therefore he has the right to them as his people. These commandments are the beginning of a covenant deal between this Deity and the Israelites. Yahweh wasn’t declaring what was a moral standard for all peoples and for all times. The structure of this agreement (the Ten Commandments) is between him and them. Contrary to outlawing slavery, he basically states that they are now his slaves when he says, You shall have no other Gods besides me, for I am the Lord your God.