From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Why is there no reference to Biblical slavery apart from the captivity of the Jews in Egypt? I know that the enslavement of others by the Jews is controversial (in that the Bible doesn't seem to "condemn" the practice, but I'm sure there are good reasons why either I'm wrong in that or for God's overlooking the practice.

In any event, it is a debate I often have with moral relativists and I was hoping to find something about it here in my own (Christan) people.

I agree completely. I have posted several Biblical references. CEinhorn 01:55, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

"ancient Egypt, where Hebrews were slaves."

There's absolutely no historical evidence for this outside of Exodus.

  • The book of Philemon is a record of Paul sending a slave back to his master "no longer as a slave but more than a slave-- a beloved brother." (Philemon 1: 16) --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 23:54, 21 March 2007 (EDT)



Is there a particular reason that it goes ancient, modern, biblical? GodlessLiberal 01:37, 29 April 2007 (EDT)


Can't anyone fix this page? --~ Terry Talk2Me! 18:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Is this a joke?

I mean. Nothing is cited. And the whole thing is a big, fallacious argument in favor of slavery. - User:Moriarty

  • Did you not see my note, about your post? If you think you are up to it, fix it! That is what a Wiki is for. --~ SysopTK Talk2Me! 21:01, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I started by deleting the parts about slaves having free housing, food and health care. As an administrator you might want to delete things like that a little quicker because they make this website look alot like some of the white supremist sites. Hopefully, not what you want. -Gasmonkey

Recent Removal of Bible passages

MountainDew, could you please explain the justification for deleting the quotes from the Bible regarding slavery that were recently added by Spoon.Airdish 06:48, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

The presence of verses in the bible which appear to support slavery in the most direct interpretation is an embarassment to Christianity, but ignoring them is dishonest and will not make them disappear. I think we should keep them, but see if we can find some anti-slavery NT quotes too. - BornAgainBrit

  • And you feel, either of you, that biblical quotes are so important in an encyclopedia, explaining slavery to contemporary users, how? Contrary to what you seem to think, this is not the Bible Encyclopedia, but the Conservapedia. MountainDew is a Sysop here, like myself, and is charged with editing and keeping entries on track, and fair. Maybe you guys should spend at least some time researching the slave trade, and maybe contemporary slavery practices, like the White Slave Trade, and that would be most helpful to this page.  :-) --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 15:46, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
My question for MountainDew was because he only removed the Bible passages which appeared to justify the slave trade and kept in only those passages which appeared to condemn it. If he had removed all of the passages I would not have had a problem. You said yourself that the job of a SYSOP is to be fair, that edit was not. For me the Bible has nothing to do with my opinions on the slave trade (in case I need to say it - it is repugnant to me), but exactly because he is a SYSOP I assumed that they Bible entries were wanted here.Airdish 16:15, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Well, unlike some users, we are concerned with the article as a whole, not just matters of religion. Since the Bible does not support slavery, but merely recognizes conditions as they were at the time, it would be unfair to use the Bible to justify any form of salvery. What was that bit about rendering unto Caeser? --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 17:25, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
As I tried to imply, I do not see a reason for there to be any Bible passages in this article. But if there are any, then they should show how it was from both sides of the argument, i.e. the article should be fair - look at this exchange regarding User:Spoon's posts - cherry-picking what you want or don't want should not be an option and I wanted to question User:MountainDew's employing of this tactic. I'd remove all passages but I assume that they'd be reverted. I agree with you that the Bible cannot be read with a 21st century morality. My vote is for the creation of a new article on "Slavery in the Bible" if anyone wants one. Airdish 17:44, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
  • I see where you are coming from, however I am loath to keep making pages just for religious zealots (and their anti-religion counterparts), for every article in the Conservapedia. Since 99% of the humans on this planet are not in favor of slavery, I don't see a need to "balance" such things. Slavery is against the wishes of God, and most all of his children, to put it in a religious parlance. --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 18:00, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
Fair point, well made. Can we remove the Bible passages from the article? Airdish 18:04, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
  • I think we can remove anything that represents the Bible and/or God is in favor of Slavery, and leave the Biblical support against slavery. As I said, there really isn't a legitimate argument in favor of slavery, so no need to have a "balance". And if someone is in favor of it, they need to find another site. --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 18:10, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
  1. Balance or not, those arguments are amoung the most liked by anti-christian debaters. Im sure you have seen how much they love to point to one verse or another of the OT and declare 'God is a brutal oppressor!' You can ignore them on the grounds that noone today agrees with them, but they still remain right there, printed in every copy of the old testament. And they were used in support of slavery, once. Really, what type of Christian chooses to just ignore a verse because it is unpopular? The appropriate response is not to remove these quotes, but to write an argument that Christianity does not support slavery. Optionally, moving them to a 'slavery in the bible' page may be a good idea too. - Suricou
  • Slavery, what it is, and it's history, is not a biblical discussion! This is not the Religiouspedia. It is the Conservapedia, one where, when it is appropriate, will not discount religious or conservative thought. There isn't a valid argument in favor of slavery that I can think of, so the point of including thoughts that are pro-slavery here would be what? --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 18:44, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
But if it's not a Biblical discussion, why are you so against either removing the section on "slavery in the Bible" or adding to it those references which seem to support the notion of slavery? Airdish 19:10, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
  • (Faints dead away) Why am I against? Aaarrrrgh! --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 20:17, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
Please answer my question. You said that slavery is not a Biblical issue (and I wholeheartedly agree) yet you support having some references to slavery in the Bible in this article? Those are two contradictory positions. That is my problem and that is what I am asking you to explain. Put it another way: If you are going to have the facts about "Slavery in the Bible" in this article, then have all of the facts. Airdish 20:26, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
  • You don't understand that some of us are actually working, and I was in a meeting. Now, I am done. Your mistake is thinking there are contradictory positions, or that for purposes of this article, there needs to be. I submit there isn't a valid intellectual or moral argument in favor of slavery, therefore one doesn't need to present arguments from the Bible that might seem to endorse it, since all Biblical Scholars I have read have said it doesn't. Therefore biblical quotes that make it clear slavery isn't "right" can and should be included. Am I being clear enough?

I didn't understand why your previous response didn't answer my question, not that you didn't respond. Basically the passages from the Bible has no place in here unless you put in all the passages from the Bible. But enough. I'm done arguing about this.Airdish 07:33, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
  • You just don't want to get the response is all. A closed mind isn't pretty. If one is free from having to present "another side", as there isn't a logical or moral argument in favor of slavery, then we don't have to present all quotes from the Bible, especially those that laymen misunderstand, and biblical scholars assure us don't mean what most think they do. --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 08:38, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
It is not about the position vis a vis the morality or otherwise of slavery. That is most definitely not in question. It's a bigger problem, and what I've been driving at all along. If we don't need the Bible to help our argument against slavery (and i'm pretty sure we don't) then there is no place for "Slavery in the Bible" to be part of this article. But if you are going to have bible passages then you are duty bound to present all of the sources if this is going to be a complete, accurate section (which I still maintain has no place in this article). It's about academic rigour - you can't just cite things you like from a document and ignore things you don't. This is very much independent of the argument for or against slavery (as I've stated earlier, there is no argument), it's a matter of principle. "The whole Truth and nothing but the Truth" eh? Airdish 14:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Oh, okay, I've got it. Only when using scripture must one apply academic rigor. And of course encyclopedias in the UK would include *ALL* passages, and never edit for length, lol. --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 18:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Stop being facetious. When using any source we must apply rigour. Also, if you're going to misinterpret what I said as an attack and then attack in return, at least get your facts straight. Airdish 05:51, 24 March 2007 (EDT)


I've certainly seen evidence that ancient slavery was qualitatively different from American slavery, not least because a) slaves could readily achieve manumission b) slavery was not racially specific c) slavery was accepted practice, and without controversy. However, the fact that the Bible addresses (and regulates) slavery is an example of God's wisdom and propriety, because He forbids bad or evil slave-owner activity. Furthermore, confusing ancient slavery and the contemporary consensus on slavery is not accurate, and doesn't represent the Truth well. Finally, ancient slavery was much more like indentured servitude (which is not an inherently evil practice, and might be seen as similar to outsourcing or sweat shopping) and shouldn't be confused with the percieved excesses of Confederate American practice. [1] For these reasons, I think the Biblical Record on this issue should be embraced. There is no shame in God's Truth, only freedom. DunsScotus 18:16, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

"Perceived excesses of Confederate American practice"-This implies that the excesses were only perceived not real. Is that what you mean?

My read is that the Bible provides support for slavery, either in ancient or "modern" contexts. Whether or not that's a good thing, is a separate matter. JohnJones 09:14, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
  • I think there is some confusion as to what Slavery was in the US South, then. The Slave Trade of the 1700's was racially specific only by the fact that the traders found a bountiful supply of people in Africa to take. It wasn't that they set out to capture only Black people, they were opportunists. Arguing who was "better" to their slaves isn't exactly admirable. --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 19:04, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
DunsScotus spake thus: "There is no shame in God's Truth, only freedom." Unless, of course, one is a slave. --Crackertalk 19:21, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
I am joking here. Paul readily identifies himself as Jesus' slave more than oncest. I believe there is no shame in that. Forgive me if my comment above made light of your observation or opinion. --Crackertalk 19:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Even about dire subjects and times, it is good to keep a sense of humor (humour). :p --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 20:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Completely. I actually thought DunsScotus was serious (albeit scary and serious) before I read that. That's totally cheered me up. Airdish 05:52, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
  • DunsScotus said "He forbids bad or evil slave-owner activity." That would imply that it's possible to have good slave-owner activity, a point which I would dispute most strenuously. If there's something more immoral than owning a human being, I haven't heard of it (and before anyone jumps in with examples of other kinds of heinous behavior, I submit that there are any number of equally immoral activities).
TheManInBlue 22:58, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't know whether or not slavery is inherently wrong, but I do know that there is no such thing as one sin being more wrong than another; it is either wrong or it isn't, wrong doesn't come in degrees. James 2: 10-11 says: "for whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, 'Do not commit adultery', said also, 'Do not kill'. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. --Ben Talk 23:06, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

Imagine it's the year 3000 B.C. .... now, to satisfy your morality, what would you propose in a social system to replace jails and prisons with, considering they didn't exist to handle common drunks and thieves in those days? RobS 00:01, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
Well, I'm not an allegedly omnipotent and omniscient deity, so I don't feel too ashamed of not being able to whip up a solution off the top of my head. Besides, it's not like they didn't have other punishments available, from flogging to fines. The notion of one person owning another is inherently immoral, IMO.
Surely you're not saying that in the absence of prisons, slavery becomes morally defensible.
TheManInBlue 22:15, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
What I am saying is reference to your personal "morality" is a pretense, and doesn't add anything to this discussion. RobS 22:20, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
Why the quote marks around "morality?" What moral code does not abhor slavery?
Well duh, this article states, "Slavery is also referenced, permitted and regulated in the Bible" Slavery#Slavery_in_the_Bible. RobS 10:45, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
That doesn't speak well of the Bible, does it?
TheManInBlue 10:45, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
I wasn't referring to my "personal" morality, but to every moral code of which I'm aware. I know no Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu or other believer (or atheist, for that matter) who considers slavery to be anything but immoral.
Sure, since we all hold enlightened, rational views now. RobS 10:45, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
Whereas the Almighty doesn't? I'd think that the source of all morality would be expected to abhor slavery. If that's not so, then this raises several interesting ethical problems. Outside the scope of this article, of course, but serious problems nonetheless.
TheManInBlue 10:45, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
I thought this was Conservapedia: I didn't expect to find some kind of flexible ethics presented here. Perhaps I was wrong.
I answered your question, incidentally: I notice you didn't answer mine.
TheManInBlue 08:24, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
I'm assuming your question is, "Surely you're not saying that in the absence of prisons, slavery becomes morally defensible." Let me answer a question with a question: Surely you're not saying that in the absence of prisons that thievery, drunkenness, prostition, and all petty crimes becomes morally defensible. RobS 10:45, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
You're still ducking my question. Thievery and other crimes (I see no objective reason for either drunkenness per se or prostitution to be illegal) do not become morally defensible in the absence of prisons or other means of correction. However, that does not address my point. If you don't have any means of retribution besides slavery, then the solution is obviously to find other means, not to endorse slavery as morally acceptable.
I can see that this discussion is not going to be fruitful. Anyone who endorses slavery for any reason is clearly beyond any kind of appeal to ethics. I believe I'm done with this organization, which is too bad, because there's a certain amount of promise here.
TheManInBlue 10:45, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
The problem can be understood as a simple economic one; an individual, in the year 3000 B.C., who would qualify for what we call today "repeat offender" status, i.e. he/she has been caught countless times in dishonesty, that is to say, stealing, so that no one would trust the individual to hold a job. This "incorrigible" in question has an immediate problem, i.e. finding tonites dinner. Now, while petty thievery may not be a capital offense warranting death by stoning, nonetheless, watching the pitiful thief waste away and starve to death evoked certain innate feelings in onlookers. Thus slavery came about, in the absence of a taxpayer funded universal state Corrections System. To pretend this social system which evolved offends your sense of "morality" is ludicrous, unless you can present some alternative theory of a social system ancients should have pursued that would have provided tonites dinner to prodigals incapable of providing it for themselves.
As the first poster in this subhead pointed out, slavery did not come into existence as a system of racial oppression, although after being in existence for some time, and being common to all societies and cultures, it did evolve into such. Prisoners of War, for example, always ended up being slaves. RobS 14:17, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
So economics trumps morality?
This is ridiculous. I can't believe I'm having to oppose slavery on "Conservapedia." I'm cancelling my account, and you may sit and defend slavery to your heart's content without me.
TheManInBlue 09:57, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
No one is "defending slavery"; we are seeking an accurate understanding of (a) what it is, and (b) how it came about. RobS 14:06, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

I wouldn't say that giving criminals forced labor is necessarily a bad thing. --Ben Talk 23:06, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

West vs. Islam

I daresay the Western world was more keen on abolishing slavery than the Arab or Islamic world. Nowhere in the Christian West is there any more slavery. The Sudan still has slavery. --Ed Poor 16:37, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Slavery was not abolished in Saudia Arbaia until 1962; a slave market 40 miles outside of Mecca was finally shut down. Many "pilgrims" to the Holy places ended up their when they didn't have the money for a round trip ticket and got busted shoplifting or whatnot to get enough money to return home. This seems to be a tradition that goes way back in Islam, and one reason Osama bin Laden cites for Western influence on Islamic traditions. The slave market was shut down, coincidcentally enough, at the same time Saudia Arabia gained independent status in the IMF & WTO to conduct its own affairs, rather than be the stepchild of the Great Britain or the US. RobS 16:51, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Therefore, all true Christians should support slavery as an institution.

This should be removed because it is offensive to many true Christians, and it truly makes this site look like a complete joke.Prof0705 13:16, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

It was, the troll indefinitely blocked. RobS 13:24, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

"Slave owners in the Southern states"

I think we need a citation for the general statement, "Slave owners in the Southern states cited Ephesians 6:5". RobS 22:08, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

Thank You, this article got me thinking

This article demonstrates the wonderful thing about conservipedia! I never realized that even my reading of the bible was corrupted by the liberal thought I've been force fed (despite having conservative parents). This article, in laying out the biblical passages on the subject clearly, made me realize that slavery isn't NECESSARILY all bad. Of course, I still think slavery of G-d fearing Christians is appalling, if they are determined slaves just because of the color of their skin. But because liberals decietfully used the obvious immorality of that to discount all slavery, even though G-d plainly wills it, I was even tricked into thinking all slavery was bad.

I had read those passages before of course, I just sort of ignored them, because they made me anxious. I didn't know how to reconcile it with the force-fed liberal ideas on slavery, that ignorantly lump all slavery together with Southern slavery. I never realized how much of a pernicious influence liberal ideas could have on even me. I never even knew any liberals growing up! To think, Satan's trickery could be so wily as to actually instill ideas in me that make me anxious when reading G-d's word.

Is there any movements to reinsitute slavery properly? I mean, I know that we have so much to battle right now, abortion, and secularism in general. But it just seems so wrong that a few impure slave-owners could tarnish a biblical institution. Its hopless right now, we are so embattled, but maybe in a few hundred years we can return to a biblical way of life. And if we are biblically consistent--e.g. opposing abortion, demanding Christianity for citizenship, calling for the institution of slavery--then maybe people will see that and have more respect for our movement.

Could the article have more on the virtues of slavery? Surely there has to be some commentary on it somewhere. Being a biblical institution it has to serve a purpose. And for those of you that say "it only applied in ancient times" I say how dare you insult G-d. He's omniscient, which implies what was right then was right now, or else He would have told us to change. InTheEvent 13:53, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

Let me present a theory: perhaps biblical references to slavery simply mirror the historical accuracy of the bible. RobS 14:45, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
Yea, thats how I "reconciled" it with my liberal indoctrination too. The fact that I thought it had to be reconciled is a bit disturbing to me. I was obviosly led astray.
Its clear from the passages that it explicitly lays out laws regarding slavery. If G-d wrote about it, it must be a pure and beneficient institution, and therefore should be reestablished. InTheEvent 18:35, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
God wrote about incest and bestiality, too; does that mean incest and bestiality are pure and beneficient? RobS 20:19, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
You know what I meant. G-d laid out laws to INSTITUTIONALIZE slavery. So as an institution it must be pure and beneficient. G-d specifically forbade both bestiality and incest. Yea, obviously because the bible talks about, say, unbelief, doesn't mean unbelief is acceptable. You must have known what I meant? Sorry, perhaps I should have been clearer. InTheEvent 21:05, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
I don't know that God institutionalized slavery, in fact, it appears God was a lone voice for slave-rights at the time. Master's thought they owned the man body and soul, God appointed specific time served remedies, and protections against things like putting out a slaves eye. God never mandated slavery, it was a man made solution for dealing with sin; God just prevented human rights excesses by the slave owners.
In point of fact, strictly speaking, the Bible actually teaches that we all are slaves, either slaves of Christ or slaves of sin. RobS 21:42, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

As I've just started to make a bit clearer in the article, biblical "slavery" and modern slavery are two quite different things. The Bible does "endorse" slavery at least to the extent of regulating it, but not in the sense of endorsing what is commonly understood as slavery now. And yet, it's a "liberal" (antibiblical) tactic to equate the two in order to discredit the Bible.

But more to the point, your view of God that he never has different requirements for different situations is unbiblical. God had Jonah go to Nineveh to tell them that they were doomed, but after they repented, He "changed his mind". That is, God's plan for the Ninevites was according to the particular circumstances, and when the circumstances changed, so did His plan.

Similarly, God required certain things of the Jews under the old covenant, and different things of Christians under the new covenant. We no longer offer sacrifices, for this reason, nor approach God via priests. Just because "slavery" was regulated and perhaps tacitly endorsed in Biblical times doesn't mean that we necessarily have to continue the practice today.

Philip J. Rayment 09:07, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

Basically, slavery was a man-made invention to deal with debtors. A thief, when discovered, owed a debt to the victim. All sorts of other crimes likewise resulted in victims suffering losses to the perpetrators whom could be identified as debtors. There even arose a concept of the society as a whole being victimized by debtors (today, liberals debate so-called "victimless crimes", alleging for example marijuana use or prostitution harms no one, which is highly debatable). The debtors were in most instances incapable of repaying the debt, and barring a disincentive or deterant, were often repeat offenders. Thus the very basic notions of living in a civilized society came into play, i.e. (1) maintaining and protecting property rights, and (2) preventing criminals from gaining ascendency over persons who by habit were honest in dealing with their fellow human beings. If the debtor could not repay a debt, his person became the property of the creditor, who then was burdened with financing the slave-debtor's survival and maintainance until revenue produced by the debtor's labor could be sold to (a) repay the slaves maintaince, and (b) repay the old debt. This process could be short circuited by selling the slave himself to another financier (in much the same way bad debts are sold to collection agencies today at a discount), thus the slave trade came into existence. RobS 11:00, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
I disagree with both of you. The sarcasm of the first entry is thinly veiled. It pretends that slavery is a creation of God and that its "good points" outweigh its bad points enough that we out to revive it. Actually, no one today agrees with this idea outside of a few Islamic people in Africa (see Sudan).
Rob's point is closer to the truth. Some people were indeed sold into slavery because of their own debts - or maybe those of their parents. Some of the human trafficking in modern East Asia stems from this: girls in Thailand or South Korea have been sold as sex slaves even as late as the 1980s. But most slaves are victims of kidnappers, marauders and war victors. They didn't become slaves due to any "debt" but were simply captured.
The main motive for slavery is to not to fulfill God's will or to reclaim a debt. Rather it is to get something for nothing. It's plain selfish. And selfishness, i.e., taking advantage of another person for your own benefit, is the definition of evil. --Ed Poor Talk 12:20, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
Thanks, Ed. What I was referring to was how slavery as an institution came into existence several milleniums ago, as we all know, written sources corroborating what I've said are problematic. And yes, slavery was complicated when a child was born of the parents of one or two slaves, who couldn't work off the debt in their lifetime. This ideas was carried over into feudalism, were originally a feudal lord could grant a person relief from the elements, a job, and sustanance, and at the time was a solution to the problems of unemployment of homelessnes; but eventually children were born into the system, and didn't regard the "lord" of the estate in the same way the orginal serf did, that is, as the guy who offered safety, protection, a job, and dinner until the fruits of his labor could be sold at market to pay for his debts. RobS 12:33, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
So G-d figured since Man was going to do it anyway, might as well set out rules for it, but not necessarily condone it? So G-d's approach to slavery is basically the same as the liberal approach to pre-marital sex?
Wonderful people, I thought this was supposed to be a conservative christian encyclopedia, where G-d's word is heeded and given the utmost respect. Apparently I was wrong. InTheEvent 17:33, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
It's not unlike divorce; God hate's divorce presumably as much as slavery, yet allowed it because of man's sinfullness, stubborness, and hard heartedness. RobS 14:10, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

"Old Testament Era"

This phrase stood out to me as I was reading. What, may I inquire, is the "Old Testament Era"? To my knowledge, the Old Testament spans quite a stretch of history, so perhaps the phrase should be more specific. Unfortunately, I was at a loss with what to replace it. --Academichick 11:02, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

It's a peculiarly Christian concept of history. Everything after Jesus was born is the New Testament Era; history stretching back from then to around the time Moses received the Law (and/or the Ten Commandments) is the Old Testament Era. Some theologians or historians might extend that back to the time of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - but it gets 'murky' back their.
Anyway, it's obviously not a secular concept. Try this reference. --Ed Poor Talk 16:36, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

Unfortunately, I'm familiar with Christianity's dealing with the Old Testament uses (since we're not Jewish). My point was that "Old Testament Era" is unnecessarily broad and doesn't really define itself clearly; the provided link certainly did nothing to answer my question. There's also the issue that the time line between the end of the Old Testament and the start of the New is not unbroken. Other historical events occur, thus making the term "Old Testament Era" vague and useless in this context. I think it should be more definite or perhaps more reliant on concrete dates, etc. Of course, there's also the issue that there is obviously slavery in both the "Old Testament Era", "The New Testament Era", and the "Post-Testaments Era". --Academichick 17:20, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
I've changed it to "Under the Mosaic Law...". Better? Philip J. Rayment 02:48, 30 June 2007 (EDT)


Islam is exactly a place name, i.e, it means "The Realm of Peace." Rob Smith 22:46, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

Begging your pardon but Islam translates into English as "submission" (i.e. submission to God).--Porthos 22:53, 19 August 2007 (EDT)
Islam is a contraction of "Dar al Salem" (Salem in Semitic languages means "peace") Dar al Salem is perpeturally at war with Dar al Harb, or the "Realm of Conflict,", i.e. those areas and persons who inhabit those areas outside Realm of Peace. Rob Smith 22:56, 19 August 2007 (EDT)
Begging your pardon again Rob, but you're incorrect. Please refer to for the origin of the word.--Porthos 23:01, 19 August 2007 (EDT)
My humblest apologies for using Wikipedia as a source, and I pray you forgive me, and I issue all appropriate warnings about its veracity, etc., but its late at nite and I promise to do better next time. But let's look at WP's entry here:
  • Dar al-Islam (Arabic: دار الإسلام literally house of submission) is a term used to refer to those lands (emhasis mine) under Islamic rule. In the orthodox tradition of Islam, the world is divided into two components: dar al-Islam, the house of peace and dar al-Harb, the house of war.
Ed. note: Tentative conclusion based upon a suspect source, (a) "peace" and "submission" have basically the same connotation in Arabic, and (b) this does not refer to a verb, but rather a domain, or place name. Rob Smith 00:17, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

That might be the origin of the word [written before edit conflicts with Porthos and RobS], but in normal everyday use, it is the name of a religion, not a physical Earthly location. I tried to make a similar change, but was beaten to it by Samwell. Philip J. Rayment 22:57, 19 August 2007 (EDT)
Modern nation states, such as Saudi Arabia, are entirely a Western Christian invention, probably dating from the time of Charlemagne's sons. Islam does not recognize Western Christian ascendency over Islam, and indeed views dividing Islam up into nation states by the British, French, and other European Imperial powers, as the root cause of their problems. Saudia Arabia is entirely a creation of Western Christendom; the Arabs refer to it as the Arabian Penninsula, really it proper name. Rob Smith 23:03, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

RobS, is this now an academic argument about the meaning of the word, or are you trying to make a case that the article should revert to using "Islam" as a place? Philip J. Rayment 02:59, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

Disregarding the non sequitur about nation-states, I think we can agree that Islam is not a geographical location any more than "Christianity" or "Buddhism" is. Regarding the words, "Islam" comes from الإسلام, which translates directly to "submission". Dar al-Islam (دار الإسلام) translates to "house of submission", as the term Dar al-Islam was used primarily after the advent of Islam as a religion. --Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğθαλκ 11:32, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
I think you have it exactly incorrect; it is ignoring these facts is precisely the grievance that motivated Osama bin Laden. Islam is indeed a place name, while "Western Civilization" is the modern secularized term applied to what earlier documents refer to as "Western Christendom." None of the so-called "Islamic states" are indigenous creations. They all were carved out of Western spheres of influence from so-called "Western Imperial Powers."
The original (primary source) Koranic language refers to Dar al Sa-lĕm, or the Realm of Peace, Abode of Peace, House of Peace, or other translated versions. The people of the House of Peace are called the "ummah", from which get we the "ummah of Sa-lĕm", or mu-sa-lĕm. Ĭ-sa-lĕm is itself a contraction (a contraction is like the word "can't"), Ĭ-sa-lĕm is a contraction of Dar-al-Sa-lĕm.
However, now we have gone past the original primary source into a body of literature spawned by Koranic writing in a multitude of languages, this may be referred to as its "civilizational aspects," to use the term of recent origin my Samuel Huntington [2]. What we are discussing here is contrasting civilizational idioms. But in short, ask any Muslim and they will tell you, Islam is primarily a place name, from which a civilization and religious faith also have grown out of. And the Realm of Peace is perpetually at war with the enemies of God, or the "faithless", also called infidels ("kufr", sometimes "kufir").
The concept of nation state arose in the division of the land of the Franks afrer Charles the Great (Charle-Magna) most historians would probably agree. It is entirely Western, and Christian in both concept and origin. Nation states were imposed upon Islam, and the Arab nation, pretty much universally after the Treaty of Versailles (less then 90 years ago). Rob Smith 13:16, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
I did just ask a Muslim coworker of mine and she seemed pretty certain that Islam is not, nor ever has been, a place name.--Porthos 13:50, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
A disciple of Elijah Muhammad? Rob Smith 13:56, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
No, her parents immigrated here from Pakistan apparently. She tells me she's Sunni by tradition.--Porthos 14:03, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

RobS, you didn't answer my question on whether you are still arguing for the article to revert to using Islam as a place. I'm gathering, however, that perhaps you are.

Even if you are correct (and I'm not convinced) that Islam is a place, then it appears that the argument really is that it is used as a place by Muslims. However, it is not used as a place by non-Muslims. So are you arguing that we should use it as a place in this article despite the fact that most of the readers of the article do not understand the word that way? Surely even if you are technically correct, we should use wording that the average student would understand.

Philip J. Rayment 21:59, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

It is nothing I'd wrestle to the mat over, I understand it is more a "civilizational" idea, although sooner or later in several articles I'd like to make some of the points outlined above. But as to slavery in Islam, this article may need a whole subsection on it, (this is why I like just referring to it as Islam, and not "Islamic countries") because a very, very strong case can made that the annual worldwide pilgrimage to Mecca for the past 1400 has been intimately bound up with the slave trade.
So, we have some nice controversies to look forward to, when I get the time. Rob Smith 23:18, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
Are there alternative terms that could be used, such as "Islamic communities", "Islamic areas", "Islamic societies", or something along that line? Philip J. Rayment 02:24, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
That's what is in there now, "Islamic countries", of course this then opens the debate, which ones? what about some "Islamic countries" that do have a modicum of multiculturalism? (Iran, Lebanon, Indonesia, Malaysia spring instantly to mind); then you have to debate the relative merits of each "Islamic nation state's" involvement in human trafficing or the slave trade, and within which specific timeframe (i.e. after the "Islamic state" recieived so-called "independence"?, or the previous 1400 years?).
All this ignores the underlying idea that Islam for 1400 years did not have local prisons to incarcerate incorrible offenders, but rather Islamic communities along the pilgrimage route just sold off the town drunk to a passing slave caravan headed for Mecca where he could be resold at a higher price to someone rich enough to make the pilgrimage, and be resettled in some other part of the world (or more specifically, the Realm of Peace). The slave market at Taif, 40 miles outside Mecca, was not shut down until 1962, and only then under pressure from the International Chiristian/Jewish community that established things like the International Monetary Fund to manage world trade, so that the Saudi rule clique could represent themselves rather than be dominated by Western Imperial powers such as the British Empire or the United States.
This seemed to upset people like Osama bin Laden, who feel the Saudi ruling clique has no legitimate title to being the Keepers of the Holy Places, and were only installed by this Western Chiristian and Jewish conspiracy against Islam (it is somewhat akin to having Muslims install their choice of the Roman Pope as the Vicar of Christ).
Bottomline, Islam condones slavery; and in fact, slavery has been a vital part of keeping social order in Islam for 1400 years. Only so-called "modernization", imported from the West, led to things like Abu Ghraib being built, and destroyed Islamic customs (one being, disposing of problem offenders in a commuinty to pilgrimage caravans headed for the slave market at Taif, rather that keeping them locked up locally).
Ahhh.... the march of progess. Rob Smith 10:31, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
I was meaning that there may be a better alternative than "Islamic countries". Philip J. Rayment 11:08, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
IMO, "Islam" works best. There's no dispute its a cultural of civilizational entity within a certain large geographical space. And "Islamic law" tends to prevail over local national governments. Rob Smith 16:17, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
The point is that most people here do not think that "Islam" is an appropriate word to use here (even if technically correct), so the question then is which of several possible alternatives is best to use. It has been replaced with "Islamic countries", but that may not be the best alternative, and a different alternative term, such as "Islamic cultures" may be better. Philip J. Rayment 22:29, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

I edited the sentence to say "and some religions, such as Islam, continue to justify it," as at the moment someone had reverted the line back to "countries including Islam" which sounds silly to the average reader who does not have the extensive knowledge about the history of Islam that some of you all do. --UMichRepublican 10:37, 3 December 2009 (EST)

Slavery is one of the less noble aspects of American history.

Isn't this the least noble aspect in American history? What aspect could be less noble than owning another man and his children? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Creationist (talk)

Killing unborn babies? Philip J. Rayment 05:27, 25 December 2007 (EST)
How about the genocidal relocations and other atrocities against Native Americans? See the "Trail of Tears" and "Ethnic Cleansing" articles for examples in American history. PaulBurnett 12:57, 31 January 2010 (EST)

In all seriousness, since slavery is so prominently mentioned in the Bible, I believe that slavery should be federally sanctioned in the United States. The way that I interpret the saying, "Do unto others as you would have done unto you" means that if you have the opportunity to advance in life, do it, because the ends will justify the means. Furthermore, don't think that your neighbor wouldn't trample over you if it gave him the chance to advance in life. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ComplexModulo (talk)

Ummm, yeah? That doesn't make a lot of sense. Philip J. Rayment 08:56, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

The slave trade was abolished in the British Empire in 1807, however slavery was not abolished in the Empire until 1832.

The slave trade was abolished in the British Empire in 1807, however slavery was not abolished in the Empire until 1832.

What point is this sentence trying to convey?Creationist 00:39, 25 December 2007 (EST)Creationist

I believe it is that buying and selling of slaves was abolished in 1807, but you were allowed to retain ownership of existing slaves until 1832. Philip J. Rayment 05:30, 25 December 2007 (EST)

Famous Slaves

I re-instated Attilla the Hun- was a slave of the Roman Empire and St. Felecity (also known as Felitas) she was a slave for St. Perpetua, both martyred by Rome.--Jpatt 10:40, 20 June 2009 (EDT)

slavery in the Bible

slavery in the Bible is a special topic that deserves its own article. RJJensen 23:11, 26 July 2009 (EDT)

Agreed. Thanks.Daniel1212 21:52, 28 July 2009 (EDT)

Problem with opening definition

The statement that "Slavery is involuntary servitude" is not fully accurate, unless you want to eliminate as slavery the form of slavery in which a person sells himself into it. Involuntary servitude by itself would also make every person drafted for the military a slave, while "the persons held in bondage are considered to be property", property is not set free due to a tooth broken by the owner, or prohibited from being returned if escaped, much less possibly requiring the death of the owner if he is killed, all of which was the case with slavery in the O.T. I think the intro should read something like, "Though slavery was not a monolithic institution, it is usually defined as being the involuntary servitude of a person by another, with the slave basically becoming property, or chattel, though slavery in the Bible provided some justice and amelioration not usually found in other forms of slavery.Daniel1212 21:53, 20 August 2009 (EDT)

Personal tools