Is Christianity Inherently Supportive Of Slavery And Misogyny?

[The Grand Nudger]

No one has mischaracterized your position Huggy. I’ll give you a chance to clarify if you like.

Do you personally endorse biblical slavery?

---

Yes, Tack, anyone could. They’re not hidden or something.

[Abaddon_ire]

That’s not the only way people entered into slavery in the Bible or in mere reality.

That’s immaterial, at this point, though.

Is that the kind of slavery that you would personally endorse?

I endorse the right for a person to be able to make their own choices, which indentured servitude clearly was. If one CHOOSE to enter into a contractual agreement to serve for a number of years for whatever it is they want, i'm totally fine with that, is that clear enough for you? not much else to say on the subject.

Ah yes. the christian go to position. When cornered with slavery being immoral and having no choice but to agree that slavery, pretend that the bible refers to indentured servitude.  That solves the problem, right?

Nope. Indentured servitude is also immoral, so it is not the "Get out of Jail" card that christians think it is.

[The Grand Nudger]

It was also the go to position of slavers legally forced out of slaving.

The only thing standing between Huggy and slavery are laws that he doesn’t agree with banning the practice entirely.

[Paleophyte]

Cite chapter and verse.

Pro tip: If a bunch of white dudes have a problem with the slavery in your religion then your religion has a problem.

Leviticus 25

10 And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof: it shall be a jubile unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family.

Every 50 years?!? That's impressively bad. Pretty much a death sentence given the life expectancy back then. Now let's look at those ifs, ands, or buts that you claim aren't there. Just a little further down the page we find:

" And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee; thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bondservant: But as an hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of jubile. And then shall he depart from thee, both he and his children with him, and shall return unto his own family, and unto the possession of his fathers shall he return. For they are my servants, which I brought forth out of the land of Egypt: they shall not be sold as bondmen. Thou shalt not rule over him with rigour; but shalt fear thy God."
Leviticus 25: 39-43

Translation: Thou shalt not have Israelite slaves. Israelites in your service must be released on the year of Jubile

"Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour."

Translation: You can have heathens as slaves, bought and sold as possessions, and you may keep them forever regardless of how many Jubilees they might live through.

So yeah, slaves according to god's on laws personally handed to Moses on Mount Sinai. No Ifs, Ands, or Buts.

---

Your assumptions are baseless, you conflate indentured servitude with slavery, where in the King James English, the word SLAVE only appears twice the bible, once in the old testament and once in the new testament, the word SERVANT is used IN ALL OTHER INSTANCES, which shows a clear distinction between the word servant and slave.

Hows is it that your apparently prodigious brain can't understand that?

Because or prodigious brains recall the tale of how the Israelites were slaves in Egypt without the actual word "slave" ever being used in the narrative. Or are you suggesting that Pharaoh employed indentured servants?

[Foxaèr]

Use the King James Version... Possession and property DO NOT mean the same thing, yet the version you used translates it as such.

If there was a correct version, schisms wouldn't exist to disagree.

[Huggy Bear]

Use the King James Version...

Why?  because its one of he most recent and certainly not authentical (thou shalt) translations?
Because it does not say you can pass this human property/posession down to your children? You really think arguing over minutiae will distract from the main problem that the bible supports owning another human being as property, and you my friend are publicly defending it?

*emphasis mine*

Because bible translations are copyrighted.

The King James version being one of the oldest and certainly the most accurate English translation and that translation is still under copyright, got it?

[Foxaèr]

[Deesse23]

Aside from the linguistic semantics question of evad/ebed, endorsing/encouraging is not the same as permitting/regulating. Could someone please cite a verse where the Bible actually endorses, commands or encourages any particular person to own another person?

You are trying to split hairs, to distract from the core issue. 

Nowhere and never does the bible explicitly forbit to own another human being as property. It however explains, in vivid and disgusting details how to "properly" do enslaving", in Exodus and Leviticus. The fact that it explains how to "properly enslave" shows cearly that the bible has no.fucking.problem with slavery. Period
The god of the bible even ordered the jews, repeatedly, to enslave those people of other tribes that werent already slain in wars. Once again its preferably the women, in order to keep them as sex slaves.

It goes even so far in laying out the gruesome details how to "properly" enslave fellow jews in different ways as "foreigners" from other tribes, how to trick fellow jews into permanent slavery, how to enslave women specifically, showing that even in slavery women have less inherent worth than men! It goes even further and lays out rules for differnent leves of "slavery" (i am using it as a general term now) and how to differently treat people who "voluntariy" agree to be a bond servant, etc. Something a lot of apologists (like Huggy Bear) are using to defend the bible, which i find personally utterly disgusting, since those methods of exploitation and oppression of other humans beings are all utterly immoral and barbaric too.

Thats it in a nutshell.

---

Use the King James Version... Possession and property DO NOT mean the same thing, yet the version you used translates it as such.

You didnt read the verses i quoted? Why do you bother to particupate in this discussion if you dont read/listen at all? No wonder you didnt learn shit all the time you are here in this forum, long before i joined.

It says clearly that you can pass down to your children those whom you have enslaved. PASS THEM  DOWN TO YOUR CHILDREN. I am wondering what specific context that may be in which you can PASS DOWN ANOTHER HUMAN BEING to your children.

So yep, fuck you and your posession/property red herring. Protip: Stop parading around your ignorance as well as your dishonesty. Being an idiot is one thing, being a condescending idiot is a whole new level of idiocy, ya know. Have i mentioned your broken moral compass yet? Possibly in a previous post, i am very confident about this.

[The Grand Nudger]

It’s unfair to characterize this as ignorance. He knew that magic book endorsed slavery, it’s not that he was unaware- just that he also endorses slavery.

He’s one of the folks I mentioned all the way back on page 1.

[Deesse23]

It’s unfair to characterize this as ignorance.  He knew that magic book endorsed slavery, it’s not that he was unaware- just that he also endorses slavery.

He’s one of the folks I mentioned all the way back on page 1.

I am just giving him the benefit of thought of being stupid beyond belief instead of assuming he is an evil fuck.