Is Christianity Inherently Supportive Of Slavery And Misogyny?

[The Grand Nudger]

It’s neither. Without religion you’d have good people doing good things and bad people doing bad things. It takes religion to get a good man to do a bad thing.

It’s obvious by his need to come up with absurd excuses for biblical slavery that he struggles with it. Ultimately, though, the aim is to endorse it so as to feel as though he’s satisfied his religious compulsions regarding the contents of magic book.

He’ll be along shortly to call me a liar and insist that he’s truly evil or whatever else strikes his fancy- but meh. He knows better.

[Deesse23]

It’s obvious by his need to come up with absurd excuses for biblical slavery that he struggles with it. 

That would put him broadly within the "idiot" folder. Someone who has to lie to himself, then to everyone else, in order to justify a belief in something abhorrent, just because he is emotionally attached to it.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think that it would be easier to discount a true simpleton with a slaving ideology. We don’t really expect idiots to get much of anything.

It might even be something we do for our own well-being…as staring the inequity of man directly in the face for what it is - the product of good people of sound mind doing things they think are right- is extremely uncomfortable. We want them to be idiots or to be evil, instead.

Sadly, that’s just not how it works.

[tackattack]

OK so since I asked, I've seen a verse that state not to have Israelite slaves. Are there any prescriptive verses that say to go get some non-Israelite slaves, or do they all describe behaviors towards slaves? If you can't produce any then the Bible does not prescribe or endorse slavery. I'm not the one splitting hairs. I haven't even focused on the semantic arguments of servant vs slave, while the entirety of this board is splitting hairs on what to endorse means. If the argument and definition of endorse were the same then I would agree that the Bible is descriptive, and therefore implicitly supports, certain treatment of slaves and doesn't say no to all types of slavery. But you can't even make that case by your own quotation of scriptures, as slavery is prescriptively limited against certain people.

As a Christian, IMO, I believe the Bible does teach slavery to one God, and that all men have masters. I doubt our definitions of slavery would match in this case though. Looks like we're not making any headway on this topic, anyone want to prod forward on misogyny?

[The Grand Nudger]

Ofc there are, not only could you find them yourself- they’ve been posted in thread directly before you claimed not to have seen them.

What’s going on here tack? Not only is slavery endorsed and regulated by the laws described- none other than god himself commands the Israelites to go a slaving - among other horrid things…as well as punishes his own people when they fail to fully do those horrid things.

Are we supposed to take any argument to the contrary seriously? Why?

[Huggy Bear]

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.

Deuteronomy 34:7
"And Moses was an hundred and twenty years old when he died: his eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated."

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.

Live I said earlier, POSSESSION does not mean PROPERTY.

If you let me borrow your PROPERTY, then I take your PROPERTY in my POSSESSION, therefore POSSESSION does not imply OWNERSHIP.

'for ever' (two separate words) and 'forever' (one word) have two completely different definitions...

Hebrew servants went free after 7 years, non-Hebrew went free after 50 (if your agreed to term of service lasted that long).

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?

*emphasis mine*
The word "servant" isn't used in the narrative either so what's your point? MY point was you can't replace the word servant with slave as if they are the same thing.

[The Grand Nudger]

I always want to think that we’ve reached peak absurdity. Like when a person quotes a fairy tale in order to argue against human life expectancy. Then I remember we’re dealing with a guy who has no filters and no floor.

[Deesse23]

Are there any prescriptive verses that say to go get some non-Israelite slaves, .....?

Leviticus 25

44 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.
45 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.
46 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.

---

Ofc there are,  not only could you find them yourself- they’ve been posted in thread directly before you claimed not to have seen them.

https://atheistforums.org/thread-63097-p...pid2051710

---

OK so since I asked, I've seen a verse that state not to have Israelite slaves. Are there any prescriptive verses that say to go get some non-Israelite slaves, or do they all describe behaviors towards slaves? If you can't produce any then the Bible does not prescribe or endorse slavery. I'm not the one splitting hairs. I haven't even focused on the semantic arguments of servant vs slave, while the entirety of this board is splitting hairs on what to endorse means. If the argument and definition of endorse were the same then I would agree that the Bible is descriptive, and therefore implicitly supports, certain treatment of slaves and doesn't say no to all types of slavery. But you can't even make that case by your own quotation of scriptures, as slavery is prescriptively limited against certain people.

As a Christian, IMO, I believe the Bible does teach slavery to one God, and that all men have masters. I doubt our definitions of slavery would match in this case though. Looks like we're not making any headway on this topic, anyone want to prod forward on misogyny?

We are not making headway, since you obviously chose to ignore what i posted, but ill repeat it again:

THE BIBLE EXPLAINS HOW TO OWN ANOTHER HUMAN BEING AND PASS IT DOWN TO YOUR CHILDREN (like any other of your belongings). Its completely irrelevant to the topic (but your last resort to deflect from it) what fucking LABEL you attach to the state of this human being you own. YOUR CHILDREN ARE INHERITING THIS *insert your fucking favourite apologist term here* HUMAN BEING FROM YOU.

What is so fucking hard to understand about this?

[Huggy Bear]

I always want to think that we’ve reached peak absurdity.  Like when a person quotes a fairy tale in order to argue against human life expectancy.  Then I remember we’re dealing with a guy who has no filters and no floor.

Clearly life expectancy doesn't mean what you think it means... what do you think a life expectancy of 40 means?

[The Grand Nudger]

Clearly, the entire diversion is pointless- as it doesn’t change the fact that you and your god endorse slavery.

Hey, fun fact, you know who knew…for a fact….they wouldn’t live to be 900 or whatever silly shit you believe?

Slaves.