Board index ‹ LGBT: Gays, Lesbians, Bisexual, Transgender, and Homosexuality

[Hickory Dickory Dock]

Here are quotes I selected detailing slavery and gays in the Bible. Speaking of, why don't most Christians not read the Bible? Is it because it's full of quotes like this allowing slavery and gay discrimination. It promotes these ideals in people and influences them, mainly to be anti-gay rights, when in reality, we know now everyone is equal and has rights...unless you're an undeveloped non-conscious fetus.

The question is do do you Christians know about this and agree with it? Why don't you read the Bible, if it's so holy?

Leviticus 25:44-46
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.

Colossians 4:1
Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven.

Ephesians 6:5
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ,

Titus 2:9-10
Slaves are to be submissive to their own masters in everything; they are to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, not pilfering, but showing all good faith, so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior.

Leviticus 20:13
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Deuteronomy 23:17 "There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel."

1 kings 14:24
"And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel."

[jimwalton]

We Christians do read the Bible, so it's fairly easy to point out the fallacies in your argument.

First of all, the definition of slavery has changed through the years. Slavery in the ancient Near East was NOTHING like slavery in the Greco-Roman era or in the colonial era in Europe and the U.S. It was a totally different reality, and we are remiss to think anachronistically and regard slavery in the ancient world as anything like what comes to our mind when we think of slavery today.

Dr. Paul Copan writes, "The textual evidence that we have for slavery in the ancient world (—by this I mean the ancient Near East, the context in which ancient Israel arose, not ancient Rome) shows by and large a different kind of 'institution' (that's not the right word to use). For this reason, the Hebrew word, eved, is better translated 'servant.' The overall textual evidence from the ancient Near East shows that slaves had certain rights—they could own property, for instance, or determine inheritance. Or they could become free, as the Bible allows, given certain circumstances. They were typically not bought and sold, opposite as the case in the medieval and modern worlds. 'Force Labor,' or the corvée, is a more complicated issue, essentially a tax on person by the government for a certain period of time (e.g., 1 Kgs 9:15). Note that the servants that Israel is allowed to take from among the foreigners are able to receive inheritance from their 'owner'—Lev 25:46."

Secondly, the Bible never endorses slavery. It tells people how to act in that situation. It protects slaves against abuse like no other ancient culture did. Israelite "slave" laws tend to be more humane than those found elsewhere in the ancient Near East. Ancient Israel accommodated slavery, but that is neither endorsement or approval.

Dr. John Walton writes, "In the Bible God does not dictate the shape of society. He does not seek to form a 'perfect' society, because no society is perfect (since it is a society of fallen humans). He rather speaks into the shape of society as it exists in those times and encourages his people to live holy lives in that society. He does not dictate an ideal kind of government (monarchy vs. democracy); he does not dictate a system of marriage (arranged vs. love) or even polygamy vs. monogamy; he does not dictate the way that a society is stratified (slaves and free); he does not dictate a certain sort of economy (market economy vs. barter). Every social structure is flawed. Regarding slavery in particular, the slavery in the ancient world was nothing like the system that existed in the US in the 19th century. Most slavery talked about in the Bible was debt-slavery, which was a way for someone whose crops had failed or who had suffered several bad years in a row could continue to feed his family by he or a member of his family working off the debt. It is no more oppressive than the current system of credit card debt and what people have to do to work it off."

As far as gays, the Bible never approves of discrimination against gays. The Bible instructs us to uncategorically love all people. The Bible never gives a Christian the leeway to not love a person or to discriminate against anyone, because God is not a discriminator (Acts 10.34). The Bible does say quite clearly that homosexuality is a sin, but so also is pride, greed, sinful anger, jealousy, envy, lying, and a hundred other things. Just because it is labelled sin doesn't mean the Bible approves of or even allows discrimination against it. The Bible does not promote discrimination against gays. Just because some Christians do (wrongly) discriminate against them doesn't make it an official teaching of the Bible or an official policy of Christianity. It just isn't true.

[Hickory Dickory Dock]

THe Bible still influences people to be against gays. You cannot deny that as people interpret it that way.

[jimwalton]

Some people use the Bible as a weapon, which should not be. But what you are claiming is that Bible

It's true that the Bible homosexuality is a sin. No contest there. So I guess it also means what you mean by "against gays." But what you were talking about was discrimination, which is a different thing. The Bible does NOT endorse gay discrimination. Some Christian business people, like the bakers in Lakewood, CO, who felt it was against their religious convictions to make wedding cakes for gays, make a choice based on their convictions about how wrong homosexuality is. So you're right that I can't deny that some people interpret it that way. In that sense I'm not sure it's much different than restaurants not serving supporters of Donald Trump, or stars hate-shaming other stars because they support Trump.

I guess a deeper question is whether every has rights (a critical word here) to be served equally by any business regardless of life factors. Is shopping in an establishment a right or a privilege? If I don't like Sprint, I can switch to Verizon. If I don't get served at Chick-fil-a, I can go to Burger King. Are these rights under the Constitution? I'm not sure. The courts, if I'm remembering correctly, ruled that it was discriminatory, but not on the basis of rights (if I recall), but "for the good of the community."

There are other businesses run by Christians that serve gays the same as anyone else. So is the Bible at fault?

[Drunk Armadillo]

Exodus 21:

“Now these are the rules that you shall set before them. 2 When you buy a Hebrew slave,[a] he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. 3 If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. 4 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. 5 But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ 6 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.

I just prefer to get the information from non apologetic sources

Slaveowners possessed not only the slaves’ labor but also their sexual and reproductive capacities. When the Bible refers to female slaves who do not “please” their masters, we’re talking about the sexual use of slaves.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_Bible

[jimwalton]

Yeah, I prefer to get my research from the scholars and not from the Internet or from either apologetic or non-apologetic sources. I get as straight to the original sources as possible.

Exodus 21.4: When a free man gave a wife to another man who owed him something, certain cultural conditions applied to that marriage. The man who was working off a debt (one who worked as an employee, or as a servant, even though their culture used the term "slave") was a debt-slave, working off his debt to a person with labor. We do the same thing today, and we call it "employment." They didn't have such a word, and used the word "slave." It meant something completely different than "slave" means in our ears today. Typically, the debt-servant could take the wife, and any children born to them, only by satisfying certain requirements. These were cultural patterns, not biblically-commanded ones.

As evidence I offer the record of a contract from the city of Emar (probably 13th c. BC). The debt-servant in this case may take take his wife and children with him when he leaves the service of his creditor, but only if he abides by the basic agreement set forth in the contract. When this document addresses the possibility that the debt-servant might renege on his commitment to abide by the contract, then the pledge "will have no claim to his wife and children." This law in Exodus may be establishing what was standard procedure in these types of situations; modifications were probably allowed if clearly established in a contractual agreement. Remember, it's casuistic law, not commandments.

A bride in this situation was probably also part of a debt-service contract, and thus she and her family also had financial obligations to the "master." The free person (the person who had finished working off his debt and was married to the lady who still had debt) had three options in that culture:

1\. Wait for his wife and kids to finish their term of service while he worked elsewhere. When her debt was paid, she would be free.

2\. He could work elsewhere and pay off the debt for them, releasing them from their contractual obligations.

3\. He could commit himself to working permanently for his employer.

With your first link to "non-apologetic sources," your Patheos author made a timing mistake. I'm talking about 1400 BC, not New Testament times. The Greco-Roman empire of the New Testament times had an abusive practice of owning people, slave pens, and all kinds of physical and sexual abuse. That's not the world of Exodus.

Your second link (Slaveowners...) makes a scholarship mistake. Of course the cultures of the ancient world had slaves, but not like Greco-Roman or the colonization period of the western world. He lumps them all together.

This text of Exodus 21 is explicated more deeply in Deuteronomy 15. For understanding, we must look deeper into the law and the understandings of the culture than the bare bones of the text. Deut. 15 seeks to prevent the establishment of a permanent poor underclass and the perpetuity of a debt-slave situation. The idea in those laws is to totally eradicate debt-servanthood in the land (Dt. 15.4). Debt-law was to be battled rather than institutionalized. The principles are all about helping each other NOT be poor, not creating economic systems and policies to institutionalize poverty and debt-slavery.

Now, there are other law codes from the ancient Near East that give enlightenment as well (Hammurabi, Lipit-Ishtar of Babylon, King Bilalama of Eshnunna, Ur Nammu, and the laws of the Hittites. I mentioned the contract has been found in the city of Emar). What it illustrates is that there were rules and agreements about such things, not just "the man can leave and the rest of the family can't." Exodus 21.4, then, is the same type of casuistic law, and is establishing that reference point, recognizing standard procedure in these types of situations, viz., contractual agreements are established to govern such situations, and the judge is to begin his ruling over the case by consulting the contract, and then is free to modify his verdict according to other pertinent factors. This is the way law worked then, and, frankly, it's how it still works now.