Your words about Christians are there for all to read. And that is not nearly your only condescension to them.

The Bible allowed that too.

Not all were killed or enslaved at that time either. You should have to cite proof the laws were handed down then...

Never said it was. That would be another view you invent for me.

Why would i do some contrast when it had nothing to do with what i said. Keep up and counter my actual views.

I said America used the bible to justify slavery and the laws for it were derived from it. This is like a fact. Jefferson Davis and some of the other southerners have some great ideas about it if you dont believe me.



None of that changes what i said. I already know Christian abolitionist helped end slavery here in America.


You are so hyped up for a got ya you cant even read and process what i write. Seems like a sickness. You should get it checked out.

Fwiw if i graded Islam verse Christianity on slavery Christians win hands down on bringing about its end. Not that i should have to since it had nada to do with what i said or its truth. But since you gave me the view through duplicity i thought id knock it down too.

Toothsayer has a point, it's not like you can sell your daughter to be a sex slave in Christianity...

“If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money." Exodus 21:7-11

That is correct, even without considering Jesus' general exhortations to "do unto others" in the New Testament.

Here is a more accurate translation, from evilbible.com

The first bold means the girl can refuse sex with him, at which point she should be set free. The second bold means that IF the girl is married, he cannot deprive her of any marital rights when he takes a regular wife. Which is kindness to the slave-wife in that age. Islam has similar ideas on this point.

In Islam overall, it's quite different. Female slaves are "what the right hand possesses" and can be freely raped, as young as 9; women have no say in the matter, they MUST submit sexually to their masters and husbands and please them sexually. It is a requirement and the child sex slave has no rights or morality in law to say no. There is no such sexual slavery in Christianity. Not only that, but child sexual slaves may be taken of the conquered, which was a big reason for the centuries of Muslim raids in Europe, to capture Christian children (ultimately in the millions) to sell to be raped by moderate Muslims.

I'm sorry, I don't accept your ad hoc reading of the verse.

It is not clear at all that failure to please means "has the right to not consent". It is, however, abundantly clear that women were sold as concubines (see Genesis 22:24 for one such example).

I'm not seeing this at your particular reference. A concubine is also a mistress, not a forced slave.

I think no subject except the hallowed Free Will gets some Christians to expose just how stupid and powerless they actually view their God to be. "But but but... He just HAD to allow slavery! It's what everyone else was doing, and poor little Yahweh just couldn't come up with a better economic system!"

I seriously doubt you have offended anyone, but your opinion on this troublesome topic would be of interest.

I believe that the Holy Spirit transforms the heart and that someone who believes in Jesus would want to find the most equitable situation for anyone in their stead, being careful not to abuse or take advantage of anyone. The economics of slavery is not a topic I am an expert in, but it seems reasonable to me that there were situations in the past where slavery was an economic and humane solution simply due to societal (and other) factors. In the page I linked to before it talked about educated men willingly entering into slavery, so clearly in some situations it was the preferable path. For someone to take Christ as their Lord though (Christ who willingly gave His life so that we could find forgiveness with God) and then go systemically abuse and enslave other people for economic gain doesn't add up for me. Were there situations where slavery was economically viable for both parties though? It seems possible. In such a situation could a Christian own slaves and still be acting morally? Again, I'm not an expert on the subject, but given the right conditions it seems possible. Why would the Bible tell slaves to obey their masters? Again, not an expert, but if slavery was a convention that provided value to both parties it would be moral for a slave to serve its master dutifully. It really comes down to what the master-slave relationship was like and what the economics of slavery was like in biblical times, and I'm guessing these details varied widely between different slaves and slave owners.

Id guess there are places on earth now with the same conditions. So if you are going there, slavery should be ok with you in today's world if it meets all of those conditions. Like it should be ok for a rich American to buy people living in all the right conditions as long as they treat them in accordance with biblical law.

This already happens regularly in the third world, with more than willing participants.

The great slave emancipations by Christians in the Muslim slave lands were often met with total despair and pleas to not end slavery. Because many of the slaves were worthless people who couldn't survive on their own.

The modern view and teachings and writings about slavery just don't mirror historical reality, especially if you go back 2500 years.

I contend that most Africans in 1700 had better lives being enslaved. The Congo was a horrible place - might I remind you that the slaves captures were rounded up by other Africans (such was the sickness of the culture - men rounding up their own kind to be sold), full of cannibalism, disease, rape, predation. Even today it's a horrible place - how many of those living in the Congo would love to come to the US to be slaves?

Or compare the descendants of Congolese that remained with those that were enslaved in the US - who has it better? It's not even close.

Slavery is obviously a horrible thiing in the abstract, but in specifics, a long time in the past, it was often the best choice for the backwards and the destitute. IQs were lower in the past, education was for the elites only (simply due to resources), and many people simply couldn't make it on their own.

I think there are probably a lot of people in the world who would jump at the opportunity to be a slave in America, conditions are such that it would be immoral for an American to own slaves though. Was this also the case in biblical times? I would be interested in knowing more about this, but I don't think it necessarily was.

If you want to say one was just and the other not based on conditions. I would have to know exactly what are the conditions of each are in your eyes. But like i said i would be surprised if you could not match up the conditions people lived in then and now. Somewhere.


Understand though these are the arguments US slave supporters (and the TS of the world) used. They would be better off and such. If so it seems many should be supporting slavery in modern times as long as their treatment is in line with the bible.

I’m going to go ahead and claim that Jesus was not a moral relativist. He did seem to be pragmatic at times though.

I’m curious, are you choosing to go the route of pointing out Christian hypocrisy because you are incapable of making a strong argument against slavery?

Im not pointing out Christian hypocrisy. There are Christians that made/make biblical arguments against slavery. Some dont and if they dont and say there was a time and a place for it then i think its more then fair to ask if such a time and a place exist today. And if it does then what?


As far as me making an argument against slavery. Nah.

I think a good portion of the third world would leap at the chance of being slaves.

They kind of already do. A lot of the third world factories and farm laborers work in conditions worse than what slaves have. When you eat chocolate, when you type on your phone, you're probably profiting from something that's not meaningfully different from slavery, as much as any southern slaveowner did. In fact they usually treated their slaves better.

Yet you dont bite the bullet. So you are for slavery?

As a Canadian I'm not interested in owning slaves, in fact I would rather give my own resources to someone in the third world hoping it improves their situation. I also know very little about how it worked thousands of years ago. The western world is obviously developed to the point where slavery is no longer necessary, two thousand years ago though it might have been ethical and absolutely necessary in some cases.

As a Christian my priority when addressing this topic is what I can do for the person in the third world to make their life better. Two thousand years ago this might not have been how someone could approach the situation, Christian or not, simply due to economics and how society functioned. People entered into slavery willingly, it seems it was a big part of society, back then people had to approach it within the reality of what it was. Could conditions be so that people today could become slaves in America through situations similar to that what existed two thousand years ago? In the abstract, it seems likely. What does that change about slavery two thousand years ago though?

The slavery of blacks in America was wrong. I think the page I linked to earlier in the thread addressed it pretty well, here is what it said.

Well, I think Americans are in the position where they should be helping those less fortunate and not considering the economics of slavery. Were situations similar enough two thousand years ago where this was realistic? I'd be interested in learning more.

Im not talking about the abstract. Leave America and the west out of it. Right now there are people living in destitution, displaced from war, dying of starvation and diseases in the world. Kids eat bark off trees to stop hunger pains. I cant think of any conditions they had in the past that we dont have today somewhere. So if it was ok biblically when those conditions were met and they can be met today you should be for slavery in some places for those people.

If you want to disagree a say the conditions cant be met today. Alright i guess. If not you are not as much arguing for a distant time and place for slavery as much as you are are arguing for slavery from my eyes even today if your conditions are met.

Thanks for these - wasn't aware of them. It makes the people who try to link Christianity to slavery look even more dishonest and irrationally hateful toward what is actually the greatest anti-slavery force in history - Christianity.

No, I'm not, but I'm a pretty lovely person who's very compassionate to all, unlike those who only extend it to the current fashionable group. I don't eat meat because of the treatment of animals, for example. So I'm probably not the best impartial judge of whether slavery would be good.

Whether the world overall would be better and richer overall and for all groups if we allowed forms of slavery is an interesting question. I think the answer is probably yes.

The idea that first comes to my mind for a person who is in debt, is for them to be allowed to work off that debt by supplying their labour to the debtor, or allowing them to get a job elsewhere and repay the debtor that way.

That, and not owning 100% of that persons time and agency, including when they are not working for the debtor.

PS I appreciate that you have difficulty with the topic, as I think all Christians must.

The one you probably would think is the best impartial judge was pretty clear

Lev. 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.

That, or the other explanation, the one where the Bible is contradictory about a topic, as it can be on other topics. This would clear up how it was used to support both sides of slavery. For example, it turns out that the death sentence in Exodus 21:16 only applies to non-Hebrew slaves.
"If a man is found stealing one of his brothers of the people of Israel, and if he treats him as a slave or sells him, then that thief shall die. So you shall purge the evil from your midst." (Deuteronomy 24:7)

There's more. Did you forget the passage from Exodus 21 earlier? You bolded the second sentence ("If she does not please the man who bought her") but the more obvious words to bold are at the very start: "When a man sells his daughter as a slave". Daughters can be sold into slavery without any messy kidnapping required.

There's more. Male Hebrew slaves might be treated differently, having a six year term limit before being set free. Except there is a loophole where they can be kept as slaves just as permanently as foreign slaves.
"Now these are the rules that you shall set before them. When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out alone. But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever." (Exodus 21:1-6)

There's more. Buying and selling human beings from foreigners is perfectly acceptable, and these are perma-slaves who can be passed from one generation to the next.

"As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly." (Leviticus 25:44-46)

There's more, for example the taking of young virgin girls as sex slaves after a defeating an enemy (in some cases there'd be no male slaves to worry over as all the men end up executed, along with the non-virgin women).

Were you not aware of these passages either? It's the only way I could imagine anyone thinking that this was "the greatest anti-slavery force in history".

To be fair, everyone who has not repented of their sins is in that same category, no?