In Luke 12:45-48: the Parable of the Faithful Servant, Jesus discusses the punishment of slaves, and says that a slave may be punished for not doing something he wasn't instructed to do.
Colossians 4:1 and: 1 Timothy 6:1-3 admonish slaves to obey their masters.
In Ephesians 6:5-9: Paul instructs the slaves to be submissive
In Matthew 18:25: people and their children are described as being sold into slavery.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
If there was a real Christ who lives 2k years ago, I don 't think he can condone it. Most of the stories we see in the bible are fruits of well-manufactured imaginations.
"When in Rome you do as the Romans do." the battle cry of conformist. If Jesus was in a place where raping little boys was commonplace and acceptable he would likely have condoned it to make it so he could advance his agenda like the churches that swear their allegiance to him have been doing. Here another question, why would the so called son of god if he were the Christ tell people to let anyone know this?
My question came out wrong and I can't edit it but the question was Why would the so called son of god or Christ tell people not want to let anybody know this. He literally said not to call him Christ in the bible and said he was the son of man. Agreed though owning people is immoral and most atheist have a higher set of morals than Jesus, Mohammed, ect..
Fake prophets in it for profits
I couldn't agree more.
I couldn't agree more.
At that time slavery was considered moral and something which was practiced
I think this is exactly right (and it is also why I think objective morality is hogwash).
Slavery is immoral regardless of the time if was practiced. This is not a book people should use as a pattern to live their life. I have more morals their Jesus if this is the best he can do. It is not moral to own another human, period end of story. I want to see Christians that claim this book of fairy tales is a righteous model to live one's life defend this depraved practice.
It's easy to judge people who live 2000 years ago. I'm guessing that 200 years from now (if we make it that long) people will look back on us and be horrified by the things we let slide. Eg "Why did they keep driving those petrol-powered cars around? They knew they were killing the world. Why did they allow guns? People were dying from them every second day! I can't believe they ate animals...." And there are probably a whole bunch more that we're just not aware of now.
The Bible is a story of people learning more, very slowly, and gradually developing in maturity. But even from back in the Old Testament there is a grand theme (whether they were aware of it or not) that one of the things God really cares about is fighting for the people who can't fight for themselves. The poor, the powerless, the sick and disabled. God comes out most strongly (in words and actions) to fight for the cause of those people, and to fight against the powerful oppressors who should know better. Probably the most defining story for the nation of Israel is the story of the Exodus, and the Israelites deliberately remembered it every year at Passover time (they still do). A huge part of their identity is "We were slaves, but God set us free."
And in the New Testament, although it doesn't seem to speak directly against slavery, there is a constant theme of the dignity of all people, and the church is described many times as a community of people where "there is no slave or free, man or woman, Greek or Hebrew, Jew or gentile" - meaning everyone is just as important as each other. The letter to Philemon is probably the most direct on the slavery issue, urging the man Philemon to forgive and reconcile with his former slave who had run away, not as a slave again, but on equal terms as free men and brothers. The anti-slavery movement when it finally happened was largely driven by christians (eg Wilberforce) who were reading the New Testament well.
Beneames:
"one of the things God really cares about is fighting for the people who can't fight for themselves."
Jesus:
Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything, not only while being watched in order to please them, but with a sincere heart, fearing the Lord.
Don't you think that slaves ARE slaves because "they can't fight for themselves"?
"We were slaves, but God set us free."
What hypocrisy, what about the slaves they Jews had themselves?
Or what about the slaves the Romans had at the time of Jesus?
The Jesus character here really shines at the type of asshole he is.
"there is no slave or free, man or woman, Greek or Hebrew, Jew or gentile" - meaning everyone is just as important as each other."
Funny why are there any slaves then if everybody is equally important? Hypocrite author of the gospel, easy answer.
It seems clear to me that the phrase "everyone is just as important as each other." does not include on the earth.
Yes we are equals but not on this world.
I mean only an incredibly stupid slave would swallow this lie.
"It's easy to judge people who live 2000 years ago."
Yes, we finally agree on something, that is the reason we see the gospels as what they are, invented by man that their moral standard was as low as it should have been 2000 years ago.
If there was a god his moral standards would at least match the morality of today right?
That is one of the most obvious indication that the gospels were man made, and no god was INSPIRING them which would most definitely know better then supporting slavery.
"The anti-slavery movement when it finally happened was largely driven by Christians (eg Wilberforce) who were reading the New Testament well."
Who were the people who instituted slavery in the Western world in the first place?
The slave trade was created by Christians and it originated by the Romans.
You forgot that before that time, a lot of decent people that tried any type of anti-slavery movement were killed by the church themselves.
Only when the church decided to stop killing people for this reason do we see the church more inclined to follow the flow of better people and endorse to help in this cause.
So please spare us the hypocrisy and the lies Beneames.
Jesus is supporting slavery in the NT just like his father.
He is OK with coming out against all odds and be crucified for his principles but with regards to slavery he has to coward back and adjust to the context of that period.
Seriously Beneames, how is it possible that you can see the hell contradiction and you cannot see this one?
Thanks for your tap dance around the fact that slavery is wrong. I don’t care how you attempt to soften it with your rationalization. It was wrong then and it is wrong now. Face it, the bible explicitly sanctions slavery. It approves the owning of one human being by another. It says you can beat them as long as they don’t die (eye loss, brain damage no problem) from the beating. How can you justify such treatment of another human? If you’ll remember the United States had a civil war over imposing sane secular laws against slavery. Do you claim the Bible as your source of moral authority?
The above reply was to beneames. I totally agree with Jeff.
just in time you said it, was just gonna hack you and fry your ass lol
Kidding, I knew that it wan't directed at me, I actually was happy to beat you in my reply even if it was longer :P
I completely agree that slavery is wrong. I was trying to explain how the Bible works, especially in relation to the original cultures.
By the way, that quote is not from jesus, Jeff.
And ImFree, both of the Jesus references you listed above are parables. Jesus is telling a story using terms that people understand. It's not prescriptive and it's not condoning. Its a backdrop. And the word is "servant" in these passages, not slave. The Paul references are instructions to slaves to do their jobs well, the same way they'd work if they were working for Jesus himself. It's a positive tip, not a negative one. The same would apply to employees today.
If you read my much longer response above, I go a lot more into the cultural issues of the time, and the progression throughout the Bible, and the gradual maturing of people throughout history. This is something that God has created us to do. He doesn't skip all the steps and just give us the answers. Neither would a good teacher.
beneames - "And the word is "servant" in these passages, not slave."
Well clearly you need to go have a serious talk with the translators of several popular versions of the bible which do translate it to slave.
beneames - "And the word is "servant" in these passages, not slave."
Well clearly you need to go have a serious talk with the translators of several popular versions of the bible which do translate it to slave.
Yea apart from that, he completely ignores the fact that Jesus accepted slavery because it is not the will of god that wins but how popular slavery was at that time among humans.
"By the way, that quote is not from jesus, Jeff."
Fair enough, but are you claiming that Colossians 3:22 is also fiction or a lie?
However, here is one by him where Jesus instructs the slave to follow orders and submit to his master's will.(whatever they are)
He should not fight for his rights or try to appeal to reason if it goes against his master's will.
Luke 12:45-47
"But if that slave says in his heart, 'My master will be a long time in coming,' and begins to beat the slaves , both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk; 46 the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will cut him in pieces, and assign him a place with the unbelievers. 47 "And that slave who knew his master's will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes, but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few."
Cut people in pieces for such a petty crime?
Is this the good Jesus talking?
What crime is so bad that justifies being cut in pieces?
Or what if his master ordered him to kill someone and then kill himself.
Does he deserve to "receive many lashes"?
Even if he did not know what his master wanted, he deserves lashes?
Be honest beneames are you gonna treat your 4 kids like this? Do you give lashes to them if they do not know what you wanted and disappointed you?
Now you will say that your children are not slaves from a different context.
But I say to you: John 15:12
"My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you."
The same love he showed to those slaves is the same love you should show to your kids.
Se the contradiction beneames?
This is what slavery means, you have no right at all and the will of the master are absolute, regardless of how cruel they are.
Jesus is saying obey always your master and turning the argument on a bad deed the slave that most likely will never do if he is a slave.
Really pathetic attempt by Jesus(roman author) to try and make the slave appear in a bad light.
"I completely agree that slavery is wrong. I was trying to explain how the Bible works, especially in relation to the original cultures."
The bible does not work, it says things which are horrible, though I agree they are in relation to the original cultures.
Too much in relation in fact, as if god has their same level of morality.
Jesus is not only not helping but is making sure that the slaves remain slaves to maintain peace.
Because of him slavery kept being accepted for over a 1000 years later.
Only knowledge managed to make us free of it, if Jesus had just 1 sentence in this divine words against slavery, so many lives would have been saved.
But no, it was more important to attack the merchants that defiled the temple of god which will be destroyed anyway.
Do you actually read what I say or do you just skim through it looking for lines to pull out of context and destroy?
I've already talked about that passage. It's a parable and Jesus loved hyperbole. It's not jesus telling us how to act.
The John 15 command to love each other as jesus loved them actually is a big challenge for me, because this was just after Jesus washed his disciples' feet, and just before he gave his life for them. "There's no greater love than when someone gives their life for their friends." That's a pretty difficult command to follow.
You can make the Bible say whatever you want if you take random verses out of context. You need to stop doing that Jeff or there's no point discussing it.
"Do you actually read what I say or do you just skim through it looking for lines to pull out of context and destroy?"
Why don't you quote which part is taken out of context?
The context seems pretty clear to me with regards to slavery.
You keep putting this apologetic that "WE take things out of context" (which is just an unsupported claim) as an excuse to dismiss the argument without discussing it.
"I've already talked about that passage. It's a parable and Jesus loved hyperbole. It's not Jesus telling us how to act."
Which part is a hyperbole?
The part where he tells to accept slashing when you do not know your masters will?
or the part that beating is not ok?, ohh sorry jesus didn't include that since his morality is 2000 years older then ours.
"It's not Jesus telling us how to act."
Is this an other unsupported claim?
What is the motive or moral of the parable then?
What moral can come out of cutting people in peaces for disobeying?
You still refuse to answer anything with reason.
"That's a pretty difficult command to follow."
It is hard if you accept for a fact that he actually died.
Which you don't, since you believe that he resurrected.
If you know that you cannot die, just like Jesus, then being crucified is not such a big deal especially if you are god and are capable of not feeling even pain during the process.
We had more real heroes in history that did much more then Jesus and for the right reasons.
Jesus just claimed that he died for you, he never supported that claim.
It is like saying, that Hitler killed himself to save what was left of Germany as a very noble thing.
Then you found out that he did not really die but is still alive.
Then he claims that he was resurrected after he died for you, and every human being has his soul saved because of his death.
Should you believe Hitler because he said so or because there is a book about him that says so?
This is all assuming that the event actually happened but if you don't ;
It is an easy command to follow since Jesus did not die for you at all, he is a fictional character.
So the quantity of love you should show to people is a big fat 0.
"You can make the Bible say whatever you want if you take random verses out of context."
You cannot if you have reason to guide you at the most logical interpretation.
But you can if you let go of reason and rely on your bias.
"You need to stop doing that Jeff or there's no point discussing it."
I'm not doing it, you are and you do not know it.
In fact I am the only one between us who is open to discussing any subject in question because I know that the grounds for my interpretation are solid since they are based on logic and reason.
I think what's happening here, and in a few of our other conversations, is that you are interpreting the Bible your own way (or maybe from other atheists' thinking) and then making your judgments based on that interpretation. Eg "The Bible condones slavery. Therefore God is evil." Or "The New Testament was made up by Romans to control the Jews. Therefore Jesus wasn't a real person and you're teaching fairy tales or worse to your kids."
But I am telling you that your interpretations on the Bible are wrong (eg. The Bible does not condone slavery). You're going to the wrong sources for that info. If you ask atheists what the Bible says you get an understandably negative image. That's like asking someone who hates football to explain the game. Or asking someone who can't stand Miley Cyrus to speak about her music. To understand all the nuances of the Bible you need to ask people who are passionate about the text and therefore work hard to understand the cultures. Eg. Ask a Rabbi, priest or Bible scholar.
You taking things out of context is absolutely a reason to dismiss your argument. Many things can mean something entirely different if you take them out of context. Eg If I say to my mates "I'm going to drop the kids off at the pool" they understand it to mean that I'm going to the toilet. But you wouldn't get that unless you understood the culture of my mates. If you misread the culture of the Bible, you are going to get it wrong.
You said that reason would guide you to the most logical explanation. But you have to try and think about what the most logical explanation would have been for the ORIGINAL READERS. It's not automatically going to be the same for someone living in the 21st Century.
I'm still wrapping my head of how can you ignore everything I said and change the subject completely on my interpretation of the text, without even pointing out at least one of my wrong interpretation.
This is the level of intellectual dishonesty your bias forces you to make.
Lets start by first checking your unsupported claims:
Where did I ever say or accept these following claims as correct?
"The Bible condones slavery. Therefore God is evil." Or "The New Testament was made up by Romans to control the Jews. Therefore Jesus wasn't a real person and you're teaching fairy tales or worse to your kids."
I never said or agreed that the "The Bible condones slavery" actually I said that the bible favors slavery, it promotes it and accepts it.
I have quoted pieces of the bible that say just this, but you refused to debate them directly because you know that that is the most logical interpretation of what Jesus said.
God is not evil(with this current claim), Jesus is evil, that what I claimed, I have not accepted the Jesus claim of being god like you did.
Your bias cannot allow you to analyse well what i am saying here.
"The New Testament was made up by Romans to control the Jews."
Please quote where did I say or agree to this lie?
I said that the New Testament is created to control everyone except the Jews.
Which is quite the opposite.
STOP making unsupported claims
The idea of the Jesus son of god not being a real existing person but a fictional character comes from many things not just from the mockery of the Jews and Jesus accepting slavery.
Here we were discussing the morality of Jesus and why it is bad to teach it to your kids.
We are not talking about the existence of Jesus here, so stop mixing the arguments as if they are one.
It is irrelevant if Jesus existed or not. his teachings are evil anyway.
"You taking things out of context is absolutely a reason to dismiss your argument."
why you keep repeating this unsupported claim.
Please specify which context does it make it fine to beat someone for not knowing his master's will?
Which part of the text do I have the wrong context and what is the right context?
You are being evasive and generalist on purpose here to avoid answering the rather obvious questions.
"You said that reason would guide you to the most logical explanation. But you have to try and think about what the most logical explanation would have been for the ORIGINAL READERS."
YES, I have done that and concluded after an extensive study that the ORIGINAL READERS must have been pro-roman.
People that can read Greek, people that want slavery, and demand obedience to their will, people that have dealings with tax collectors, people that were at war with the Jews and their version of the religion.
ORIGINAL READERS that liked how the things currently were and don't want to revolt, thus readers that want peace. ORIGINAL READERS that the only acceptable Messiah/Christ for them was a crucified one.
The only candidates for these ORIGINAL READERS are the Romans and their allies.
Last but not least, I have had quarrels with nearly every person on this site for pointing out some flaws in their arguments, I did not accept what some atheists said as facts and make conclusion on them, those conclusion are derived on the interpretation I have made.
I am ready to debate those interpretations when ever you want.
Bring it on.
Is anyone else reading this? Am I being evasive? Am I being unreasonable?
Jeff, I wasn't trying to change the subject. I brought up those things because they were examples of what I was trying to communicate. I realise I vastly oversimplified and caricatured a bit. Sorry. I should have chosen my words more carefully.
Well the bible repeatedly instructs the reader how they should treat their slaves, so your statement: "The Bible does not condone slavery" is problematic, to say the least.
If a book had a dozen or so passages instructing people on how to shoot and block penalty and corner kicks in soccer, you would look pretty foolish if you said the book does not condone the playing of soccer.
I get that. Nice metaphor.
I think the problem comes when we treat the Bible's laws as if they were meant for all time. Many Christians do this too, although they're illogically picky about it (eg many of them say "Homosexuality is wrong" because of laws in the old testament, but they don't also apply the sabbath laws, tithing, cleanliness laws or the sacrificial system). It makes no sense to treat the Bible like this. The Moses laws were for the ancient Israelites, and there is a progression throughout the Bible, as the cultures change and adapt as well. I'm even ok with a progression in understanding since Jesus, because he didn't say everything there is to know about truth and how to live.
If you wind back to Moses, 4000 years ago (don't quote me on that date), here's the kind of stuff they said on slavery. (I've missed out some verses from these passages.)
Exodus 21:2, 10-11, 26-27, 32 “If you buy a Hebrew slave, he may serve for no more than six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. “If a man who has married a slave wife takes another wife for himself, he must not neglect the rights of the first wife to food, clothing, and sexual intimacy. If he fails in any of these three obligations, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. “If a man hits his male or female slave in the eye and the eye is blinded, he must let the slave go free to compensate for the eye. And if a man knocks out the tooth of his male or female slave, he must let the slave go free to compensate for the tooth. But if the ox gores a slave, either male or female, the animal’s owner must pay the slave’s owner thirty silver coins, and the ox must be stoned."
They still had a long way to go, but from what I understand it was a revolutionary step forward from the surrounding cultures in the ancient near East (Egypt, Canaan, Babylon etc). These passages give dignity to slaves at least. It's a snapshot of where they were in history. They still had to develop A LOT on things like gender and patriarchy, race and violence, and the thinking BEHIND the moral imperatives, and that is a development that gradually occurred over the next few millenia. On some of them you can even see the development happening within the Bible. There were women leaders in the early church (in Acts), for example.
"I think the problem comes when we treat the Bible's laws as if they were meant for all time."
Which part of Jesus path do you follow then since the context of Jesus was different then ours since its 2000 years old.
According to your same logic you should not follow the path of jesus at all.
"It makes no sense to treat the Bible like this."
Why not, you guys are claiming that this god is eternal and unchanging and he is a love, yet when we show you that his morals are outdated by some 4000 years, you keep blaming the people and not him or the wrong context.
The context has nothing to do with it.
If god wants something he does it.
The context of those barbaric people 4000 years ago cannot control god to make him do or say evil things else he is not a god worthy of worship. He would be the bitch of those people at the time.
You are actually claiming that god is weak and has to follow and conform to the people's wishes of a particular context period.
You are being dishonest here, and there is no way you can get away with it.
Is god all powerful and love or is he the slave of man's wishes at a particular time period?
It makes sense if you think of God like a parent (which is how he is often described throughout the Bible).
My kids are still young at the moment, so one of the "laws" we have in our house is that they are not allowed to touch the oven. And I give them black and white scenarios to drive the point home (eg If you touch the oven you'll burn yourself and end up in hospital). But when they are older, more mature and more responsible I will change the rules completely. Therell be no rule about not touching the oven. They'll be able to use it whenever they want, and hopefully even make delicious goodies with it.
If you condense those years into the same time, it looks like I'm flighty or contradictory. Don't touch the oven because you'll burn yourself. Touch the oven and make goodies. Does that mean I'm a weak parent? Am I the slave of my kids' whims or conforming to their wishes? No. In fact, it's actually proof of my love for them.
My kids are still young at the moment, so one of the "laws" we have in our house is that they are not allowed to touch the oven.
Jesus christ what a dodge
You are not doing what jesus or god did, since you are a better person then both.
You are not saying that if they touch the oven you will cut them to pieces or even if they dont know that they cannot touch the oven and touch it they deserve lashes.
Jesus was OK with this kind of behavior, He even used it to describe what will happen when the son of man comes.
What will happen to everyone including his disciples.
That is the context so do not try to claim that it is out of context.
And YES what jesus says is the jesus path you think you are following.
But you tend to be picky about what jesus wants you to do.
You think that the good ppart of you is rapresenting jesus but in reality it is just you.
Everybody has his conscience and Christianity has made us believe that our conscience("the good US") is Jesus or representing Jesus.
When in reality this is a lie, the "good you" has nothing to do with him.
You have been brainwashed this lie so much that you do not even think to doubt it.
But when they are older, more mature and more responsible I will change the rules completely.
He never changed those rules, never jesus specificly says that killing people for working on Sunday is wrong. Thus correcting his own mistake.
You are mixing a bad deed with necessary context deed(which has to be good anyway even if not the truth). This is a dishonest way to exonerate god from all the evil he does.
beneames - "If you wind back to Moses, 4000 years ago (don't quote me on that date), here's the kind of stuff they said on slavery."
LOL I am going to quote you on the date a little anyway. I believe you told us recently that the book of Job was the oldest book in the bible. According to Wikipedia it's about 2600 years old, so your about 1400 years short.
But I do understand what you are saying, I was just having a little fun with ya. OK i can't resist another:
Might I suggest an invention? How about a Velcro bible? Attached each book in the collection with Velcro. So when you want to say "the bible does/doesn't do X" you can quickly tear off the sections that don't agree with your statements; but when your done you can quickly reassemble it. Or maybe some-kind of quick release system so with a single press of the button you can panic eject 90% of the document leaving just the parts attributed as the words of Jesus? Should be quite useful for debates.
Ha. Nope I don't think that was me. I'm not sure how Job could be just 600 years before Jesus. Most scholars place it in the time of the patriarchs. But I think a lot of the material in the Old Testament was collected together during or after the years of exile, so that might explain the 2600 date?
You guys might find that Velcro Bible useful too. You could eject 90% of the document and just leave the really negative stuff ;)
"Most scholars place it[the book of Job] in the time of the patriarchs."
Uhhh hehe. You seem like a reasonable dude, perhaps you should double check that...
Pages