Talk:Slavery

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)

Abomination

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)

Arguments for Slavery

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)

• 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. --Cracker^talk 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. --Cracker^talk 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)