History in context

They still have it in parts of Africa. Read Reggie Whites(Eagles ,Packers) book he used to buy children out of slavery and set them up in good adoptive homes . He didnt want any credit for it for religious reasons

So true. Slavery is illegal in every country of the world, but still continues under the radar. Wish BLM would attack today's problems.

Oh f**k Blm organization. They are avowed communists and enemies of this country. They need to move out of the country and take up residence in Hong Kong cause it will be a new communist city soon

It was common for slaves to be taken in the Old Testament of the Bible, but most Christians agree that laws and practices from the Old Testament only apply today if they are reiterated in the New Testament. The word "testament" means "covenant" or "promise" in this context, so the Old Testament is the Old Covenant that God had with humankind, but the New Testament is the New Covenant that God has with humankind.

For example, the Old Testament commands that we follow the 10 commandments, but the New Testament only reiterates 9 of them. The one left out is the command to observe the Sabbath. I haven't met any Christians who observe the Sabbath. (Resting on Sundays is not the Sabbath, and Jews who observe the Sabbath are technically not Christians, but rather part of a different but similar religion called Judaism.)

Another example is the command to sacrifice animals for salvation from sins. People in the Old Testament were required to do that, but Jesus' sacrifice in the New Testament negated that command and from that point, people only needed to accept Jesus as their savior to be saved.

Old Testament slavery isn't reiterated in the New Testament, and so Christians take the slavery accounts from the Old Testament more like a history lesson than a practice that we follow. Personally, I don't see how anybody can argue that the Bible justified Slavery.

One more thing I should add. Slaves were still around during the New Testament, but not in the same way. God did not order slaves to be taken anymore, but rather the slaves that were taken were by non-Christians such as the Romans. Also, God encouraged slaves to be treated well. The short book of Philemon is an example of that.

Old testament slavery was nothing like civil war slavery. In the old testament they had to be set free after 10 years. They got a wage. They could buy themselves out of slavery. They were treated like servants and could leave the property on errands.

Look up God's instructions on beating slaves.

Slaves made of enemies and non-Judeans were a bit different from a Judean having to pay off a debt (the indentured servitude you refer to).
Also, selling your daughter to be a slave was not a temporary arrangement nor a pleasant one.

The NT is a Roman corruption of Judaism, as foretold would be done courtesy of the Son of the Jackal, seated in Rome AKA the Beast.

Constantine made it law to change the Sabbath to one observing the Roman Pagan Sunday one under penalty OF DEATH.

Slavery did not end with the advent of Chrisitianity and resume with the colonies in America.

God's instructions on beating slaves were actually rather merciful. Slave owners were commanded to release their slaves if they did permanent damage to their slaves (Exodus 21:26-27), and slave owners were to be put to death if they beat their slaves to death (Exodus 21:20). I will also mention that in the following verse, Exodus 21:21, it says that if the slave survives a beating for a day or two, the slave owner does not have to be put to death, because that slave is the master's property. However, the restriction of a death penalty for beating the slave to death with the restriction of releasing the slave if permanent damage is done, causes a slave owner to have to be very careful about beating his slave. God was just saying that a master has the right to beat his slave, since sometimes force is necessary to teach a lesson.

Also, people were not allowed to kidnap slaves, which is the type of slavery that the Atlantic Slave Trade was, or else they would be put to death (Exodus 21:16). Later in the New Testament, God says that kidnappers are included in a list of evil men (1 Timothy 1:10).

My point is, even in the Old Testament, God commanded relatively merciful treatment of slaves.

Here is my source for this information: https://answersingenesis.org/bible-questions/feedback-does-bible-encourage-masters-beat-their-slaves/. Take a look for yourself if you want more information.

Also, I am not disputing anything that Constantine or the Romans did. I am only describing what the Bible says.

From the slaves perspective, that's hardly merciful. God says it's ok to beat a slave just not to death. Yeah, they must have lined up for that.

So no captives (war, etc) were enslaved?

The Bible does NOT say that the NT replaces the Torah. It does NOT say Sunday is the new Sabbath. It does NOT say Roman Pagans shall rewrite the word of the Chosen.
In other words, the Bible does NOT say Yahweh lied but here's the Romans to fix it.

The Bible DOES say that the Romans would do this. Not too difficult to figure out who the Beast is, 666, what some refer to as the Anti-Christ, and what name that corruption of a religion took....

Funny how the command says to 'remember' the Sabbath and keep it holy. Almost like somebody knew.

hahaha, so true!

FATHER, SON, AND HOLY ROAST,,,,

'' "Christian slavery was good? Sheesh, they tortured free people in the cruelest of ways and burned them at the stake for mere accusations of witchcraft or even keeping the Sabbath on the Sabbath"

Excellent point!

Fun fact: the BTK killer sent letters to the police taunting them for their inability to catch him. In one letter he asked if they could use a floppy disk to track him down. Of course they said no, and he actually sent them the disk! They found information on it which led them to figure out his identity. When they arrested him he was angry that they had lied to him about getting information off the disk XD''

Yeah, must have been a true joy to witness the Spanish Inquisition try it's darndest to top the MediEvil Era. Back when Christianity reigned supreme.
America was only partially settled by assorted Christian sects fleeing persecution.

HAHAHA, what a dumbass.

I wonder how many developing serial killers in the Cult of Trump or ticking time bombs fill the ranks here. But I'm sure they'll be nice n Christianlike about it, so the dying won't be THAT awful ,,,

My bad. Had only a fleeting encounter that info last year.

"But God advocated merciful treatment for slaves."
Like not too much of an oxymoron.

It's like the BTK serial killer coldly talking in court about how he tortured and murdered his victims like it wasn't in a bad way or some story I once saw with iman talking about how they properly stone someone to death with stones not too small lest the suffering lasts too long nor too big lest it be over too quick and they won't have a chance to learn their lesson well before dying.

Christian slavery was good? Sheesh, they tortured free people in the cruelest of ways and burned them at the stake for mere accusations of witchcraft or even keeping the Sabbath on the Sabbath instead of Constantine's Sol Invitus day or daring to say the stars are suns like ours and not angels dancing on the head of one really big pin.

The most barbaric religion ever in history but we're supposed to forget that because we've chilled out a lot since WWII.
Good grief. I mean, sheesh, it centers around a horribly cruel execution by the Romans who called the day of their horrendous deed "Good" but it's ok because he rose from that death and said, "Fhuck God's Chosen, I'm sticking with you guys that brutalized and murdered me because y'all know how to party up my death, WOO! WOO!"

Yeah, from a slave's perspective, it is not merciful. But they were slaves. It was merciful for a slave. Not merciful for a servant, but merciful for a slave. Non-Christian countries treated their slaves far worse. God said it was okay to beat a slave, but not to death, AND NOT CAUSE PERMANENT HARM. Permanent harm is rather easy to do, so beating slaves had to be done with restraint. We also have to judge the practices of that time by the standards of that time. Back then, beating a rebellious child was not frowned upon, whereas today, many people call for spanking to be made illegal.

Captives from war were absolutely enslaved. If they were men, and if they survived the war. There is a good chance that men of that country were fighting in the war and thus would have been killed as enemy soldiers, and were not taken captive. Those who were, were treated as slaves as I have described. However, women and children were treated very differently. A captured woman that a man wanted to take as his wife, would be given a month to grief for what she had lost, and then the man could take her as his wife. That seems barbaric by our modern standards, but remember that back then, women had almost no rights and without a man to protect and provide for her, she would be doomed. Women were given the chance for a new life with a home and a provider. If the man decided not to take the woman as his wife, she was not to be sold or to be treated as a slave (Deuteronomy 21:10-14). Children were given similar treatment.

I don't understand why you are bringing up your other points. Personally, I believe that the New Testament replaces the Torah (although a lot of the Torah is reiterated in the New Testament) but you don't have to agree with that for my points to stand. I never even said that Sunday was the new Sabbath. I said that many Christians who do not observe the Sabbath rest on Sundays, which is not the same as the Sabbath. As for Roman Pagans rewriting the word of the Chosen, why bring that up here? I don't see relevance to this debate. We are talking about what the Bible says about slavery. The Anti-Christ has nothing to do with that either. Seriously, I have no interest in debating these other topics. I'm saying that the Bible does not justify slavery (specifically the Atlantic Slave Trade of the last few centuries) and it does not encourage excessive beating of slaves. Please stay on topic.

I encourage you to view the link I referenced before coming back.

Beating of slaves was for punishment. If the slave was stealing from his master, and he wouldn't simply stop when told to, he had to be beaten. Not necessarily a harsh beating. It could have been a whip on the top of the hand like a ruler to the hand that used to be used on children in schools. Especially back then, physical punishment was considered to be the best means of punishment because it gave the most results.

Look at a rebellious child, for example. If parents choose not to spank their child, they can take away privileges, such as video game time, or send them to bed early. However, these people were already slaves. They were already at the bottom of society. They already had no privileges. Physical punishment was one of the only types of punishment that would have any affect.

Again, we must judge the past by the standards of the past. Today, beating of slaves at all is considered barbaric, but back then, beating slaves was considered the norm. Non-Christian countries did not restrict the beating of slaves, however, so it was much worse. Even though life as a slave was certainly not nice, the Bible made it better for them, not worse.

Also, the book of Philemon is all about showing mercy to rebellious slaves.

The Bible made it better for slaves because if they survived a brutal beating, they had to be set free!