Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 77778

The Bible is criticized for allowing slavery, and for not condemning it. At best, it’s seen to be a reflection of the morals of its time, at worst, actively evil. But it is a mistake to view the institution allowed in the Bible as equivalent to the slavery of Africans in American history. The slavery in the Bible is more like a form of indentured servitude. Such an arrangement would allow a poor man to survive. While not ideal, in an era before government welfare programs, slavery would be preferable to death, especially when some forms were more equivalent to modern-day employment than what we think of as slavery.

We also see the rank hypocrisy of atheistic attacks on the Bible. Slavery was an evil that occurred on all inhabited continents, and all races have practised it and been its victims (the word comes from a heavily enslaved “white” race, the Slavs). It was finally abolished only by evangelical Christians in the West using explicit biblical reasoning. Yet who do the antitheists single out for the evil of slavery? The Christian West!

Lita Cosner, Creation Ministries International 56 Comments [12/3/2010 5:55:42 AM]
Fundie Index: 54
Submitted By: DevilsChaplain
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2 3
Doctor Whom

Those "evangelical Christians" originally tended to be nonconformists, i.e., not True Christians™. Mainstream Christians joined them only by rewriting the Bible to fit changing social mores.

As for the rest, why couldn't the magic sky pixie just snap his omnipotent fingers and change the social order? Oh, that's right -- he was too obsessed with which insects his chosen people were allowed to eat.

12/3/2010 6:07:32 AM

Mister Spak

We also see the rank hypocricy of Lita Cosner. She claims slavery is perfectly OK when done the bible way, and slavery was evil that existed without the help of the bible so you can't blame her religion for slavery, and slavery was abolished because of her bible religion. Yet who does she single out to blame for slavery? Atheists!


12/3/2010 6:12:28 AM

TGRwulf

No, slavery is fucking slavery. Oh and way to ignore the bible passages that say it's okay to beat your slaves as long as you don't kill them.

12/3/2010 6:27:48 AM

Draken

I see, being forced to fight hungry lions in an arena is "indentured servitude allowing a poor man to survive". Glad we got that cleared up.

12/3/2010 6:34:50 AM



Posted by Xotan


Yet the slaveowners used the Bible as a justification, and I am unaware of any southern pastor that contradicted that stance.

Special pleading going on here and about Jephtha's daughter too. Lita, you have no idea what was going on in that daughter's mind: what she knew or did not know. You are making this up because the text is an embarrassment to you. Let's see you squirm some more! you may fool the deluded, but any rational person can see behind your discomfiture. In a word, it's evil that you are protecting.

12/3/2010 6:35:06 AM

Fuzz

The fact that this level of absurdity is tolerated is obnoxious to say the least.

12/3/2010 6:43:18 AM

Doubting Thomas

I see you're using the "indentured servitude" defense of slavery in the bible. Which is false, because the bible tells you which nations you can take slaves from. In other words, you can go in, conquer, and take the people to be your slaves. How is this helping a poor person to get by? And I don't care how charitible you think it is to own another human being, rational people rightly see it as a horrible practice.

12/3/2010 6:59:20 AM

breakerslion

The Bible is criticized for allowing slavery, and for not condemning it. So let's just shovel a big steaming pile of bullshit over all of this and make it o-kay!

Christian Apologists: Making excuses for their misogynistic, sociopathic, and remarkably absent god for 2,010 years and counting.

12/3/2010 7:00:40 AM

Szena

Indentured servitude allows you to own any children born to your "servants" forever? Really? It allows you to beat your servants to within an inch of their lives?

Give me a break.

If the Bible merely reflected the morals of its time, stop claiming that it contains eternal moral standards.

12/3/2010 7:03:36 AM

Brendan Rizzo

The Bible is criticized for allowing slavery, and for not condemning it. At best, it’s seen to be a reflection of the morals of its time, at worst, actively evil.

If only you had stopped after this point.

12/3/2010 7:09:35 AM

JohnTheAtheist

Oh, since people other than christians enslaved people it absolves christians? Is that your point?

The fact that bible can be used both to justify and abolish slavery and ought to tell you that it might not be a definitive source of morality. The fact of the matter is that all thinking human beings know that it is wrong to enslave another person and the bible could not even be unequivocal on such a black and white issue (no pun intended).

You are fucked up.

12/3/2010 7:28:05 AM

Horsefeathers

"The Bible is criticized for allowing slavery, and for not condemning it."

As it should be.

"At best, it’s seen to be a reflection of the morals of its time, at worst, actively evil."

Why not go with both?

"But it is a mistake to view the institution allowed in the Bible as equivalent to the slavery of Africans in American history. The slavery in the Bible is more like a form of indentured servitude."

Right. Sure it is.

"Such an arrangement would allow a poor man to survive."

And? Slavery allowed those poor, ignorant savage Africans to not only survive but see new lands, meet new people, experience new things and come to Christ. Just ask any slavery apologist.

"While not ideal, in an era before government welfare programs, slavery would be preferable to death, especially when some forms were more equivalent to modern-day employment than what we think of as slavery."

You're quite a sick person, you know that? Look, here's the thing with indentured servitude: it was fucking voluntary. It was an actual contract both parties agreed to. Slavery is the forced servitude of one person to another and the slave becomes the property of the other, often with no recourse nor chance to be freed. There was no end of contract term, you weren't working off a debt--you were bought and owned and there wasn't a damn thing you could do about it. See the difference now?

"It was finally abolished only by evangelical Christians in the West using explicit biblical reasoning."

Bullshit. You were the guys using the Bible to justify its existence.

12/3/2010 7:36:23 AM



I can see quite a bit of rank hypocrisy around here, but it's not coming from atheists.

12/3/2010 7:50:43 AM

John_in_Oz

Lita Cosner is an anagram of Lone Racist.

I'm just sayin'.

12/3/2010 7:53:36 AM

Unbeliever

@ Horsefeathers:

"The Bible is criticized for allowing slavery, and for not condemning it."

As it should be.


Why? The Bible was written when slavery was a commonly accepted practice.

12/3/2010 8:03:37 AM

David B.

And similarly, Lita, adultery in the bible is a terrible crime involving rubbing your privates with the freshly removed skins of newborn babies and hence evil, and not the extra-marital intercourse of today, which God is absolutely down with.

It starts "do unto others", Lita, care to finish the quote? If you can just make up whatever s**t you want to support your argument, so can I.

12/3/2010 8:29:54 AM



Oh, this argument again, their slavery was different. Whatever

Capturing people and forcing them into slavery against their will, breaking apart their life and families, beating them to within an inch of their lives per bible rules, forcing them to do subhuman work for nothing...yeah, slavery must have been grand then, what was the difference between it and the American version again?

12/3/2010 8:38:01 AM

Raised By Horses

Indentured servitude? Right.

I'm guessing the Voluntary Guests of the Spanish Inquisition didn't mind being Enchancedly Interrogated in their Happy Funland Chambers, either.

12/3/2010 9:13:50 AM

JSS

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

Indentured servitude eh?

12/3/2010 9:21:14 AM



Exodus 21, Verse 7:

"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do."

12/3/2010 11:07:32 AM

Joe Mama

OK, so let me get this straight... the Bible was OK with slavery (and Jesus, too, remember he told slaves to obey their masters) even though in a couple thousand years the entire rational world would see slavery as an abhorrent abomination and something which should never be tolerated. So if God was inspiring men to write the bible, why couldn't he, being omniscient and all, put in a few verses saying that slavery is a totally bad thing? Or didn't he have the foresight to do this one little, but important, thing?

See, Lita, this is what I'm getting from you defending the bible:

Slavery = good.
Eating shellfish = an abomination.

Can Christians just not see why we non-Christians think their god is totally fucked up and why we don't accept the bible as 100% good morality?

12/3/2010 11:10:18 AM

dionysus

The premise of slavery is that one person owns another person as property. It doesn't matter if the slaves were made to work the fields or sleep on comfy pillows. The fact of the matter is that owning another person is wrong. And Biblical slavery isn't that humane anyway. The only stipulation on beating your slave in the Bible is that they don't immediately die from it.

12/3/2010 11:29:16 AM

Headache

Yepp - Another retarded American promoting slavery - fuck you idiot!

12/3/2010 11:31:19 AM

aaa

Try again. You only made me laugh my ass off.

12/3/2010 11:49:38 AM

DinosaurRidinJeebus

LOLOL.


Let's turn YOU into an "indentured servant." The bible says it's cool to beat you as long as we don't kill you.

You really are a dumb bitch.

12/3/2010 11:53:01 AM
1 2 3