Does the Bible promote slavery?

[nazra7]

Hello everyone. I often hear that the Bible promotes slavery. I admit that it really does seem like slavery was encouraged in the old testament, especially since the word "slave" is often used. The most common implication of slavery that I am told is that the slaves were bought and sold as legal property.

Ofcourse, I'm sure that you all have heard the rebuttal about using the KJV instead of the NLT because the KJV is more accurate. But in doing this, we don't say that slavery is encouraged in the old testament because of the existing words "slave", but rather because of them being bought and sold as property.

From what I understand though, slavery has two conditions. One being that a person is legal property of another. The second is that the person was also forced to obey their master. Every dictionary definition seems to agree.

But in as far as my knowledge extends, there really isn't any evidence to suggest that the slaves or servants were forced to obey their masters. In addition, I've seen evidence that suggests the contrary (Deuteronomy 23:15 for example).

So isn't the notion of slavery in the old testament really contingent on the fact whether or not the slaves or servants were forced to obey their masters?

[Mystic]

So isn't the notion of slavery in the old testament really contingent on the fact whether or not the slaves or servants were forced to obey their masters?

Why would any remain a slave if they weren't forced to?

[Paul the Human]

It's okay to own someone as property, so long as you don't force them to obey you. Now I understand. Thanks for clearing that up.

[Erinome]

A slave apologist! Barf.

The southern states of America sure didn't have any trouble using the bible to defend their position of opposition of abolition. They used it to the letter, and were adamant that they followed no one's rules for slave owning but god's.

[nazra7]

A slave apologist! Barf.

The southern states of America sure didn't have any trouble using the bible to defend their position of opposition of abolition. They used it to the letter, and were adamant that they followed no one's rules for slave owning but god's.

That is certainly correct. But couldn't they be wrong?

[Erinome]

Then the people who wrote the bible were wrong, or else god is wrong.

Pick one.

[Paul the Human]

Let's say that you're correct. The bible doesn't promote slavery. So? What difference does that make?

[nazra7]

Let's say that you're correct. The bible doesn't promote slavery. So? What difference does that make?

This issue seems to be one of many reasons why some atheists are atheists. If people begin to see that this may not be true (and if it is true that it is not true), its one step closer to validating Christianity. Am I wrong in thinking this? Thanks.

[Napoléon]

This issue seems to be one of many reasons why some atheists are atheists.

You clearly have no understanding at all as to why people are atheists.

I guarantee for most, if not all of us on this forum, the bible promoting slavery has fuck all to do (or extremely little) with why we are atheists.

[Erinome]

Validating christianity for whom? Even if you could validate it for all the atheists in the world, you'd still have to validate it for all the other religions.

You live in a box. You're a mind slave, and you don't even realize it.

Even if slavery weren't an issue, what about the misogyny, the contradictions, the innumerable murders of innocent people justified by your god. What about the repulsive assertion made by your own jesus that if you even dream of a sin, you're guilty of it? What about the outlandishness of a loving and merciful god who tortures souls for all eternity for simply believing in something other than him?

If you want to validate christianity for me, personally..... you're going to have to submit substantiated/peer reviewed evidence of the existence jesus as the son of the deity known as Yahweh, and then you're going to have to rewrite the whole thing until it's 100% less repulsive than it already is.