Bible: Slavery
This article on Slavery in the Bible has consistently been one of my most popular articles. I have decided to rewrite the article to be more concise and more cutting. Also, for the first time I have created a printable Pocket Reference.
Click here for a Pocket Reference for this argument
This article can be adapted to many situations. The obvious ones are when a Christian wants to argue that morality comes from the Bible. But there are clearly implications if you are arguing with a fellow non-believer that wants to argue that “some people” need religion to tell them what is right and wrong.
As I write in my tactics section: make specific claims, ask for specific claims. This helps both sides of any conversational argument know the position of the other person and keeps both people from arguing against a position that the other does not hold.
Slavery remains a modern day travesty – a travesty with the Bible and the Koran on the wrong side of the issue. You would never think that owning people as slaves is immoral if you rely on the Bible or the Koran as your sole source of morality.
The International Labour Organization (A UN specialized agency which seeks the promotion of social justice and internationally recognized human and labor rights) says:
“At least 12.3 million people around the world are trapped in forced labour.”
Claim: The Bible never says a word against owning people as property.
This claim is specific and simple to refute in principle – all it would take is a Bible verse that says something along the lines of Article 4 of the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Article 4: No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
Apparently, God never figured out that slavery was wrong. Or, He does have a moral issue with slavery, it is just that He is a terrible communicator. If you think that God condemns the institution of slavery, you have to wonder why God is worse than the UN at communicating that idea.
Not a pretty dilemma.
Sometimes a person claims that God delivered the Jews from slavery, therefore, God is against owning people as property. I have heard this argument many times, but this brings up an amazing opportunity. I would set it up by saying something like the following: “you would think that something as important as slavery would be mentioned in the 10 Commandments – and it is mentioned, right at the beginning of Big Ten, ‘God who delivered you from slavery in Egypt…’”
I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods before me.
If you stop reading the 10 Commandments at this point, you might be thinking, perhaps God does have a moral issue with slavery. Keep reading and you discover that God directly addresses the moral issues surrounding the owning of people as property.
You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.
Thou shall not covet thy neighbor’s … slaves … or other property.
God’s thoughts on the morality of owning people as property – don’t covet your neighbor’s slaves. Well, it’s clear: God has standards. At best, God has an issue with other people owning Jews as slaves, not a problem with slavery in general.
Of course, this does lead some people to think that slavery is not immoral. If you are arguing with such a person in a public setting, the best thing to do if they make such a concession is to address the crowd and say something like, “See people? This is why I argue against these superstitions. They get otherwise sane people to believe terrible things like, “slavery isn’t wrong.”"
Here are a few bible verses that support this argument.
Old Testament Verses:
As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you, and from their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property. These you may treat as slaves, but as for your fellow Israelites, no one shall rule over the other with harshness.
This is a fun excerpt if they really want to use the King James Version, because it says that you and your descendants get to have slaves for forever.
Leviticus 25:44-46 (KJV)
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.
Exodus 21:1-7 (NRSV)
These are the ordinances that you shall set before them: When you buy a male Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, but in the seventh he shall go out a free person, without debt. 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 declares, “I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out a free person,” then his master shall bring him before God. He shall be brought to the door or the doorpost; and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him for life.
Exodus 21:20-21 (NRSV)
When a slaveowner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner’s property.
Another strange defense — and one that non-believers sometimes let pass without challenge:
Theist claim: “But that’s in the Old Testament and no longer applies…”
This is an implicit agreement that the Old Testament records God doing some very bad things.
Use the Agree with your opponent’s statement in such a way that it actually improves your position tactic.
Say something like, “Good, you agree that God commanded immoral things in the past – perhaps you’ve forgiven Him for that. Let’s look at that New Testament then, shall we?”
Perhaps they’ll take issue with the statement, perhaps they will let it pass.
Here are some lovely New Testament verses that demonstrate the lack of progress in morality regarding slavery:
New Testament Verses:
Ephesians 6:5-9 (NRSV)
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ; not only while being watched, and in order to please them, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. Render service with enthusiasm, as to the Lord and not to men and women, knowing that whatever good we do, we will receive the same again from the Lord, whether we are slaves or free. And, masters, do the same to them. Stop threatening them, for you know that both of you have the same Master in heaven, and with him there is no partiality.
Christian slaves – treat your masters well. Christian slave masters are directly addressed, and told to treat their slaves well.
Colossians 3:22-25 (NRSV)
Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything, not only while being watched and in order to please them, but wholeheartedly, fearing the Lord. Whatever your task, put yourselves into it, as done for the Lord and not for your masters, since you know that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward; you serve the Lord Christ. For the wrongdoer will be paid back for whatever wrong has been done, and there is no partiality.
Christian slaves, wholeheartedly obey your masters in everything. If they treat you badly, know that they will get punishment in the next life.
1 Timothy 6:1-5 (NRSV)
Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be blasphemed. Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful to them on the ground that they are members of the church; rather they must serve them all the more, since those who benefit by their service are believers and beloved. Teach and urge these duties. Whoever teaches otherwise and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that is in accordance with godliness, is conceited, understanding nothing, and has a morbid craving for controversy and for disputes about words. From these come envy, dissension, slander, base suspicions, and wrangling among those who are depraved in mind and bereft of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain.
Christian slaves, obey your masters well – and obey your Christian masters especially well. Anyone who teaches otherwise is going against the words of Jesus, and has a morbid craving for disputes about words.
Titus 2:9-10,15 (NRSV)
Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to talk back, not to pilfer, but to show complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the doctrine of God our Savior. … Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one look down on you.
Christian slaves, be submissive to your masters. This teaching should be exhorted with authority. Do not let anyone look down on you for advocating slavery.
I think that any self-proclaimed Bible believer should be ashamed of the Bible’s stance on slavery.
An interesting way to sow some cognitive dissonance in the Christian who honestly believes that slavery is wrong AND that the Bible is the word of God is to challenge him as to whether he is ashamed of the Bible’s stance.
If not, would he loudly “declare with all authority” that “slaves should be submissive to their masters?”
If he is hesitant to do that, really try to get him to discover why he’s hesitating.
1 Peter 2:15-20 (NRSV)
For it is God’s will that by doing right you should silence the ignorance of the foolish. As servants of God, live as free people, yet do not use your freedom as a pretext for evil. Honor everyone. Love the family of believers. Fear God. Honor the emperor.
Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh. For it is a credit to you if, being aware of God, you endure pain while suffering unjustly. If you endure when you are beaten for doing wrong, what credit is that? But if you endure when you do right and suffer for it, you have God’s approval.
Christian slaves who have harsh and unjust masters – you will be credited for enduring pain while suffering unjustly.
Remember: you have God’s approval. The verse above continues:
1 Peter 2:21-25 (NRSV)
For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you should follow in his steps. “He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth.” When he was abused, he did not return abuse; when he suffered, he did not threaten; but he entrusted himself to the one who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body on the cross, so that, free from sins, we might live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed. For you were going astray like sheep, but now you have returned to the shepherd and guardian of your souls.
Christian slaves! As the Bible says, “Don’t rise up against your oppressors, you have the perfect example for you, remember: Jesus didn’t fight back at all.”
The last possible refuge for the Christian is to say some variant of “you expect God to tell what is right and wrong in every situation, are you kidding?”
To which the proper response is: If God’s going to mention slavery more than 10 times in His book, yet never mention a word against it, he has addressed the issue; his thoughts are recorded on the institution of slavery.
Click here for a Pocket Reference for this argument
Leave me some comments if you try this or any other argument that I write about and let me know your successes and any challenges that you came across.
Click here to view/leave comments.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=63c92faa-6073-483b-b1f8-a9897892a5d2)
Claim: The Bible never says a word against owning people as property.
"Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so. For the one who was a slave when called to faith in the Lord is the Lord’s freed person; similarly, the one who was free when called is Christ’s slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of human beings." 1 Corinthians 7:21-23
Thanks for stopping by, Hendrick!
You've got the closest thing to a verse that says slavery is wrong. The NRSV quotes it as:
1 Corinthians 7:20-24 "Let each of you remain in the condition in which you were called. Were you a slave when called? Do not be concerned about it. Even if you can gain your freedom, make use of your present condition now more than ever. For whoever was called in the Lord as a slave is a freed person belonging to the Lord, just as whoever was free when called is a slave of Christ. You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of human masters. In whatever condition you were called, brothers and sisters, there remain with God."
Pauls says, twice in those 5 verses to remain in whatever condition you were called to Christ. If you're a slave, remain in that condition. Why? The one who was called in the Lord as a slave is a freed person belonging to the Lord. In God's eyes, that person is not a slave, but a freed person.
Of course every freed person when called is Christ's slave...
Two points.
1. This is clearly not a condemnation of slavery as an institution. If God wanted to make this clear, He's a worse communicator than the UN.
2. It seems to me that Paul is writing to not become slaves of human beings in the same sense that Jesus says you can't serve two masters. Sure, be a human slave -- but you are truly a master to God. Remember that, and you a free.
Your argument is based on silence. Sometimes God regulates, rather than bans, immoral practices. God hates divorce, but God also regulated it. Deeply ingrained cultural practices could not simply be outlawed then, just as we can't simply outlaw smoking, pornography, abortion, etc. today. My point is that Israel was freed from Egyptian slavery by God - that tells us what He thinks of slavery.
Your distate of slavery is, ironically, based on Christian morality. If you are repulsed by it then you have William Wilberforce to thank . As Timothy Keller wrote, injustice done in the name of Christ happens because "Christians" aren't being true to their own religion. Social justice is still being advocated by the church today. Meanwhile there is more slavery than ever before in history. So it's a bit rich when you talk about the Bible promoting slavery.
Hendrick you are So Right, no one can call themselves Christian if they believe that slavery is biblical
From ConverseAtheist's old post:
"Sure, be a human slave -- but you are truly a master to God. Remember that, and you a free."
That should read "you are truly a slave to God."
From Hendrick's old post: "Your distate of slavery is, ironically, based on Christian morality. If you are repulsed by it then you have William Wilberforce to thank ."
There was opposition to slavery before William Wilberforce came onto the scene, you should know, and Christian slaveholders used the Bible to defend that "peculiar institution." There were many people and groups, such as the Quakers, already working to abolish slavery. Here's what Wilberforce himself wrote in a pamphlet from 1807:
"it would be wrong to emancipate (the slaves). To grant freedom to them immediately would be to insure not only their masters' ruin, but their own.”
Wilberforce voted to send British troops to Haiti to help put down Toussaint L'Ouverture's efforts to free the slaves. In 1824, Wilberforce opposed Elizabeth Heyrick, who pushed for immediate abolition of slavery. The Abolition of Slavery Act passed in Parliament in 1833; Wilberforce retired from Parliament in 1825. He did not contribute to the passage of that act.
In fact, Wilberforce was AGAINST immediately abolishing slavery:
"But the abolition of slavery must be gradually and not suddenly effected, and this, both on the principles of justice to the planters, as also to the slaves themselves. For, in the present reduced circumstances of the slaves, to propose their immediate emancipation would be to produce horrors similar to those which have already happened at St. Domingo."
As you can see, Wilberforce was FIRST interested in the effects of abolition on the white planters, and only secondarily on the effects to the slaves.
So he's hardly the "great hero" Christians want us to believe. Stop believing the mythology and look into it for yourself. Sheesh. And Christians are most likely to support brutal social policies that penalize the poor for being poor, so don't feed us that rubbish about churches and social justice. People who regularly attend church are more likely to support torture. Christians are most likely to support the death penalty. Christians are more likely to be Republicans, and to wail that "entitlement programs" (programs that help the poor) are wrong and that they should be cut so that the rich don't have to pay so much in taxes. Unless you're a Unitarian Universalist, you probably don't have a leg to stand on.
Proverbs 22:7 The rich rules over the poor, and the borrower is the slave of the lender... Just a heads up.
My favorite is Proverbs 22:7 (The rich rules over the poor, and the borrower is the slave of the lender)... Most think that it was a warning for the 99%. Some believe it to be instructions for the 1%.
"You are living and searching in error, because God means movement and not explanation." - Elie Wiesel
God IS against slavery because of freeing the Israelites of slavery because the Israelites are God's special people. The reason that He doesn't stop slavery, abortion, death, war, etc. is that in that Bible, it says that He gives us two choices: that we chose Him and turn from evil, or ignore Him and be punished in the end. We can't serve two masters.
There is ZILCH ZERO NADA NO evidence that there were substantial numbers of Jews who were slaves.
None.
We have evidence of much older groups having lived there, but nothing--absolutely nothing--that shows a mass migration.
Your genocidal scumbag manual is full of lies. Deal with it, and shut up until you learn something worthwhile--that means it won't be in your worthless crap book of hate and lies.
There are at least two different types of slavery being discussed here. One was a mostly voluntary type of slavery that was a then culturally accepted form of social welfare. The other is an involuntary, or forced slavery that was most certainly condemned in the Bible. “Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death” (Exodus 21:16). And the New Testament mentions slave-traders as being grouped together with other types of ungodly and sinful people (I Timothy 1:8-10).
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46)
If he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. (Exodus 22:3)
Way to take care of the poor, God! Notice there's *nothing* "voluntary" about that ^.
If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6)
Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2)
Slaves must always obey their masters and do their best to please them. They must not talk back. (Titus 2:9)
"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 (Luke 12:47)
Why shouldn't the "slave" be fired? Let go? Perhaps without a letter of recommendation? No, Jesus advocated the beating of slaves who did not please their masters - there is no concept of basic human rights anywhere in the Christian scriptures.
If anyone can explain to us how the above passages can be spun so that they sound anti-slavery, I'd *love* to hear it!
Here is a passage I'm surprised you didn't mention:
"Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee. He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him." (Deuteronomy 23:15-16)
Yet the book of Philemon is all about how Paul is *returning* escaped slave Onesimus to the owner he escaped from! It looks like Christianity is *far WORSE* than Judaism on the topic of slavery! Paul had the perfect opportunity to speak out against slavery; instead, he blathers on like a ninny about "bowels" and other nonsense.
There are at least two different types of slavery being discussed here. One was a mostly voluntary type of slavery that was a then culturally accepted form of social welfare. The other is an involuntary, or forced slavery that was most certainly condemned in the Bible. Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death (Exodus 21:16). And the New Testament mentions slave-traders as being grouped together with other types of ungodly and sinful people (I Timothy 1:8-10).
So then, if God is - why be so vague about it? Why not come out and simply say, "Slavery is wrong. While you've come accustomed to it and have acknowledged it within your culture, if you have slaves, set them free, as you are a slave to Christ and will be a slave to no man, neither shall your slaves be a slave to you." Where is that verse? That's a very simple stance against slavery while still being honoring of Christ.
Also, Hendrick, you're counter argument is invalid in the second paragraph. Not once in this article did I see the author post against Christians saying all Christians are bad and dont do good. When I was discussing this with someone just last night, my main point was William Wilburforce, who was a Godly man and stood up against the culture that advocated slavery, and my question to you then is - why didn't any of the writers in the Bible? And if the word is inspired by God, then why is there no clear stance against it?
And isn't God's silence against an issue enough to give you the answer anyways?
"If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor." - Desmond Tutu (also a Godly man)
I do not take issue with Christians. I have been in that world and most of my friends are Christians and are doing amazing things towards social justice. I do not think any of these arguments necessarily invalidate God (and if the Bible having inaccuracies can destroy your faith...where do you put your faith anyways? Bible or God?) but they bring up important questions regarding belief and where your morality comes from, which many would say stems from the Bible. Because of the bible though, people who advocate the freeing of slaves also believe Homosexuality is an abomination and harrass and ridicule LGBT's because what they do is sinful and not deserving of honor.
Lastly, CA - this was a good article to read but I do have a question - one of the arguments posed to me was the culture they were. It was claimed that there were just as many slaves, if not more, than when William Wilburforce rose up against slavery and the atlantic slave trades. To me, that simply could not be true, as it is clearly documented that there were more slaves at that time, than ever before. He said lack of documentation during the bible doesn't make him wrong and thus stood by his argument that there were just as many if not more slaves during Bible times. All this to come to his point, that Paul didn't address/come against slavery simply because he feared for his life if he did. By coming against something so culturally accepted would have put his life in danger. Wilburforce didn't face the danger that Paul did and therefore, simply let the culture choose for itself because there were other things Paul needed to say. This led to a pretty furious debacle by the end of it because, Paul said some pretty controversial things against the cultural norms as it was, but stating how someone treats a slave was something he did several times, telling me that Paul is okay with slavery, and therefore, by Christian definition of the word being inspired by God, that God is okay with slavery. What are your thoughts on this argument? We made no ground really because he wouldn't budge no matter what was shown about slavery now or even in the 16th-19th centuries (Atlantic Slave Trade). Being against slavery in that time, to him, was worse than being against Caesar (that's a quote, he said that). Thoughts?
"All this to come to his point, that Paul didn't address/come against slavery simply because he feared for his life if he did. By coming against something so culturally accepted would have put his life in danger."
I'll copy and paste part of what I said to Dave Marriott below:
This type of response is always astounding to me. I mean, simply astounding. This is the kind of response an atheist would give for why an atheist would or would not do something. Basically, it's a practicality argument -- which makes complete sense if you are humans, operating in a world of human constraints, against other humans, and without any sort of divine guidance, encouragement or support. This, however, is NOT the situation that these people are in, according to Christianity.
You can only seriously make and defend a practicality argument, if you suppose or assume that God does not exist/has no influence.
When it comes to the NT discussion of slavery, what this article fails to mention is that slavery in the first century Roman Empire was vastly different than the slavery of antebellum American society. For example...
1. The population of the Roman Empire was comprised of 85-90% slaves with few individuals enjoying the privilege of Roman citizenship.
2. Roman slavery was not limited to a specific ethnic group, as it was in our American context.
3. Roman slavery was sometimes forced (as prisoners of war), but oftentimes individuals volunteered as slaves in order to avoid starvation.
4. Some slaves were relegated to difficult work in the mines, while others served as teachers, business operators, or even doctors.
5. Slaves were permitted to own property, start personal businesses, and even seek to purchase their freedom from their masters (called manumission).
6. Interestingly, because they did not live in the land of opportunity like we do, freed slaves often struggled to make a living, and so some slaves opted to continue to work for their masters, while others slaves with worse masters opted for freedom.
Your article begins with the concept of "slavery," but fails to communicate -which- slavery is being discussed. It's easy to define to allow all your readers to think that the God of the Bible gives instruction on American slavery -- and then quote verses that pertain to Roman slavery (or OT slavery). This is unfair and misleading.
While I'm at it, here are some reasons that Paul and other NT authors did not begin a radical slave-uprising:
1. With as many slaves as were present in the Roman Empire, leading a revolt would cause societal, economic, and political turmoil, which would produce a situation antithetical to Paul’s prayer in 1 Timothy 2 -- that the church may lead a quiet and peaceful life, going about her mission, because God desires all men to be saved. In other words, Paul desires for peaceful political conditions, so that the gospel-preaching mission of the church may thrive.
2. Paul believes that a person’s identity in Christ is more important than the person's identity in any social structure (Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:11). If the Lord should make their freedom possible, the slave should take full advantage of that opportunity, however (1 Corinthians 7:20-21).
3. While in a more perfect world, even this sort of slavery should be abolished, seeking such an abolition is not Paul’s most urgent mission, since he and many Christians are being persecuted severely, often running for their lives, and in many cases (Paul) writing from prison or house arrest. In fact, when Paul writes Colossians, Ephesians, and Philemon, he is under house arrest in Rome, awaiting word from Roman authorities regarding his freedom or death. Many of these Christians were slaves themselves. Their primary concern was the furtherance of the gospel. If they were able to live while still being a Christian, this was a bonus. In light of this, changing their social status was not their top priority.
See Copan, Paul "Is God a Moral Monster" (several sections on slavery) along with Schreiner, Thomas, "Paul: Apostle of God's Glory in Christ" (pages 432-437).
You raise a lot of interesting points. Because I'm short on time tonight, I want to focus on two of your points.
"It's easy to define to allow all your readers to think that the God of the Bible gives instruction on American slavery -- and then quote verses that pertain to Roman slavery (or OT slavery). This is unfair and misleading."
Ok, let's say I accept your charge. Then what does the Bible say about this kind of *worse* slavery? At best it's silent, and we have to find our morals in a different way than a closer reading of the Bible.
"While I'm at it, here are some reasons that Paul and other NT authors did not begin a radical slave-uprising..."
This type of response is always astounding to me. I mean, simply astounding. This is the kind of response an atheist would give for why an atheist would or would not do something. Basically, it's a practicality argument -- which makes complete sense if you are humans, operating in a world of human constraints, against other humans, and without any sort of divine guidance, encouragement or support. This, however, is NOT the situation that these people are in, according to Christianity.
You can only seriously make and defend a practicality argument, if you suppose or assume that God does not exist/has no influence.
Is there a bible quote against homosexuality?
Yes.
Slavery no doubt is a hard issue to deal with regarding occurrences of it in the Bible. What may be another way of seeing how the Bible treats is that it speaks more about slaves rather than slavery. This is not an attempt to excuse the issue, but to reveal the nature of the individuals both master and slave as opposed to the wholesale practice of slavery.
In reverse chronological order of the Bible, the apostle Paul mentions the proper conduct of slaves and masters both in their relationship to the Lord rather than each other. However, it is their conduct to each other as well as their duties and responsibilities that will be ultimately accountable to the Lord alone.
The apostle Paul in his letters to the Ephesians (6:5-9) and Colossians (3:22-25) both describe that it is the Lord they are both serving. The matter Paul is describing speaks more about individuals role in Christian society either slave or free, and that their conduct is to be in service to the Lord whether anyone is watching because the Lord always sees. The dynamic of the roles in the New Testament era was significantly different in that, slaves could sell themselves into slavery to settle debts. In fact it was common for individuals to sell themselves in order to have a better way of life (employment, housing, etc.). This is not a measure to legitimize slavery that was practiced. It is however a way to view slavery as significantly different than what we would commonly identify it with from colonial times in early American colonization.
During the time of slavery in America, slaves were not allowed to free themselves or pay their way out of slavery like it was common in the New Testament era. Also, others could free slaves by buying their freedom from their masters. In addition it was even common during the NT era for masters to marry their slaves thus canceling their slavery. This was dramatically different since slaves were not always viewed as inferior people or races as was often the case in early America. So the picture we have in the Bible of slavery compared to what we understand from American colonization slavery is significantly different.
However, the conversational atheist (identity unknown) in the online article speaks mostly to the use of slaves in the Old Testament and for good reason. His argument brings a good example especially in Leviticus 25:44 "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves." Does this mean God legitimized wholesale slavery? No. God did not permit the Israelites to buy Israelite slaves, but he did permit the poor among them (Israelites) to work as hired servants.
Again, the question needs to be asked, since God permitted the purchase of slaves did he sanction it? No. Did he allow it. Yes. Why? For the Jews the year of jubilee meant the freeing of slaves for every 7 years. But the message of the Exodus from Egypt was that the Israelites were not just free from the Egyptians they were free to come into a right relationship with the Lord, a life free from sin and enter into the free presence of the Lord.
So what is important to see about slavery in the Bible is not slavery but freedom. The apostle Paul himself said, "But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness" Rom 6:17-18. Therefore Paul continues to make the argument we are all slaves, the choice is ours. Does that mean slavery today is acceptable? No. The economy of ancient Palestine and Rome depended on slave labor in order to build cities and infrastructures. Slaves were often taken from conquered cities and kingdoms in order to prevent rebellion and other occurrences of war. In some ways it was seen as preemptive measure for security purposes.
I think it is extremely important to understand the historical and cultural context of the Old and New Testament in how we have understood other forms of slavery, both in how it was obtained and used. Today we see slavery rampant every where however it masquerades itself as self-will run riot: prostitution, addiction, gambling, materialism, etc. I believe the apostle Paul likened slavery to sin in that, "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord" Rom 6:23. The question is who is our master, ourselves or the Lord? What will we choose death or freedom?
Paul's counsel to Philemon/Onesimus was one of the two primary Biblical accounts that began to lead me down the path of atheism from a decade long ordained ministry and Bible College graduate.
Simply, Paul is promoted in the NT as one who received direct enlightenment from Christ himself and is so confident in possessing the mind of Christ that he counsels others to follow him as he follows Christ.
As an ex-pastor I imagined myself counseling a slave and his owner that were both converted under my ministry. If I had a fraction of Paul's supposed discernment, it would be a no-brainer to counsel a Christian to never feel he can own another human being, much less a fellow Christian.
The other was what I like to call, "The Tale of Two Kings". When I broke down the beloved stories of Kings David and Saul I realized that God fired Saul for failing to commit genocide as he commanded while "forgiving" David for committing adultery with one of his most loyal servants/generals and then having him killed to cover up her pregnancy.
In other words: Not completely decimating a rival tribe=Ultimate Evil
Getting busy with another man's wife and having him
killed? Meh it happens! (oh btw yes i'm aware David was punished...the innocent baby died and his daughter was incestuously raped by her brother...yeah women punished for the man's sin).
These two stories when looked at unbiasedly reveal the truth that the bible was not written by a perfect all-powerful deity but by bronze-age bigoted middle-eastern men.
I only wished I would have figured that out 20 years ago...