Slavery in the Bible


I have always had a difficult time explaining to Christians all the numerous reasons why I have come to detest the Bible and its teachings contained therein. Of the the Bible's contemptible teachings one of the worst is that of it's defense (and in many cases indifference) of slavery. 

Many Christians claim that I have read or interpreted the Bible incorrectly. I usually get so frustrated by their hardheadedness and tactless comments that I preemptively end the conversation. Call me "sensitive," whatever, but I out right refuse to have a "serious" discussion with anyone who would defend something as horrible as slavery based on nothing more than the feeling that I am mistaken without giving it any further consideration. 

I don't like being talked down to in such a condescending manner--as if I couldn't read or comprehend the book I studied for three long decades. As if having two college degrees has somehow made me too sophist in my philosophical inquiries. Imagine my dismay when these are the very same conflicted allegations I continue to receive today. Yeah, either I am a moron or an intellectual elitist. That clears things up. 

Such slander doesn't sit well with me--and to make it worse Christians usually throw it out there as a matter of fact--either way--I'm an idiot or elitist snob--either way I am wrong because I do not prescribe to their Christian worldview. But why is the Christian worldview merely assumed to be right? This is the question I had roughly twenty-nine odd years ago, and upon investigating the matter I discovered that... contrary to the ubiquitous opinion of the unquestioning religious... Christianity is not a perfect belief system.

Perhaps, however, my self defensiveness has always had a way of getting in the way of me explaining the exact reasons why I think that the Bible is detestable, contemptible, and immoral.

In my past popular articles, like The Imperfect and Immoral Teachings of Jesus Christ, I have frequently raised several objections to the moral character of the person Christians worship by pointing out his acceptance of human bondage and slavery.

Predictably, however, the Christian defense erupts with claims that I am mistaken, wrong, and arrogant. Who would have the audacity to claim the perfect son of God is in anyway immoral or would gladly allow such a thing as lowly and despicable as slavery? Only a cold hearted atheist who is angry at God--well--that's the usual (and totally inaccurate) spiel of the Christian apologist who has entirely missed the point I was attempting to make. 

In the end, however, am I really wrong? 

No. I don't think so. And here is the why.

In what follows is an extensive, and highly detailed look, at Biblical slavery by the YouTube blogger Discovering Religion. In it he shows beyond a shadow of doubt that the Bible not only condones slavery (rather than condemning it) but also (in part 3) explains my very same concerns as why this destroys the "loving" God theology of Christianity utterly and totally.  

Without a doubt--there is NO redemption for the Bible or its most ardent defenders. Christianity is a corrupt ideology through and through and the good bits (what little there is) are overshadowed by the predominant horrors that it condones. It doesn't matter that modern sensibilities have overridden the unjust practice of slavery--the teachings continue to exist within the Bible as a mark indicating the exact depth of its moral corruption--and taken in their proper context--there is no denying that these teachings are highly unethical, if not downright evil.

Please watch these videos. They explain my line of reasoning with a clarity I sometimes lack. 


Slavery Anti-Apologetics (Introduction) 


Slavery in the Bible: Slavery Dialogs (1 of 3)

Slavery in the Bible: Slavery Dialogs (2 of 3)

Slavery in the Bible: Slavery Dialogs (3 of 3) 

Transcript: 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Discussing the Historicity of Jesus with a Christian Agnostic

Image
Steven Jake, the author of the up and coming blog  TheChristian Agnostic , [1]  wrote a rather thorough response to my lengthy comment asking him about the state of the evidence regarding the historical Jesus. I am pleased he took the time to write a thorough response. I only feel that such a thorough response deserves my own more detailed response as my initial comment was merely that—a comment. So without further ado I will address some of Steven Jake’s comments and concerns. Initially Steven Jake (henceforth SJ) posted a quote from New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman claiming that there is an abundance of evidence for a historical Jesus. I merely contested this claim asking for what evidence we have that would be considered historically reliable. As I see it there is none. That doesn’t mean, however, I don’t think there  wasn’t  a historical Jesus, just that we cannot prove if there was or wasn’t and so I remain agnostic as to the historicity of Je...
Read more

Conflating Atheism and Agnosticism is a Mistake

Image
In a discussion over at Bud's blog Dead Logic , a reader asked a question I have been hearing more and more recently. It's a good question, so I thought I would do my part to try and answer it. Doesn't admitting to being an agnostic instead of an atheist FEEL like you're being wishy-washy, or not fully committing to your "belief"? ... I understand that it's only honest to say that we CAN'T be sure, but I sure do hate to show weakness (real or perceived) in an argument. Not at all.  Agnosticism deals with knowledge.  Atheism deals with belief.  The Agnostic position cannot assume whether a thing like a God could exist or not given the lack of sheer evidence for such a things existence. Therefore knowing with any given certainty just isn't possible. The agnostic then makes the claim that a definitive answer with regard to "knowing" of God's existence cannot be given either way. Atheism, however, can state with assurance t...
Read more