What's new

Trivia DOES THE BIBLE SUPPORT SLAVERY? (GOOD READ)

GildartsTale

Forum Veteran
Elite
Joined
Oct 27, 2020
Posts
741
Reaction
238
Points
666
DOES THE BIBLE SUPPORT SLAVERY?
------
Some critics argue that the Bible supports slavery, therefore, it is not ethical. Ginagamit nilang basehan ang mga instructions about slavery sa Mosaic Law (found in the first five books of the Bible) pati na rin sa epistles sa New Testament (Eph 6:5-9; Col 4:1; etc) para patunayan na hindi against ang Biblia sa gawaing ito. Madalas ding gawin nilang halimbawa ang pagkakaroon ng mga alipin sa Bible para sabihin na hindi makatao ang tinuturo nito. How do we respond to these accusations? This issue was already addressed in countless ways. I-discuss lang natin ngayon ang ilang mga punto:

25aa.png
DESCRIPTIVE VERSUS PRESCRIPTIVE. Hindi natin matatanggi na may mga passages na naglalahad ng realidad patungkol sa slavery pero hindi makatwiran na i-assume na ina-approve ng Diyos o ng Biblia ang gawaing ito. The passages only record (descriptive) the practice but never promote (prescriptive) it. No biblical text endorses slavery. The Bible faithfully records the identity of Hagar, the slave of Sarah (Gen 16:1), but it in no way instructs the readers to get their own slaves. The Bible also narrates Joseph being sold into slavery (Gen 37:28), but the story doesn’t promote human trafficking.

25aa.png
IN THE IMAGE OF GOD. The Bible is consistent in teaching the truth that every human being is valuable. From the start, the Bible declares that all people are created in the image of God (Gen 1:27). In the New Testament, it was affirmed by saying that everyone came from God (Acts 17:26, 29) and that God does not show favoritism (Acts 10:28; 34; Rom 2:11; Eph 6:9). Ang mga early opponents ng slavery ay pinanghahawakan din ang katotohanan na ito. Dahil ang lahat ng tao ay nilikha sa imahe ng DIyos, hindi tama na ituring ang kahit sino na “property” lamang.

25aa.png
CONCESSIONS OVER THE IDEAL. God’s instructions in the Mosaic Law rarely reflect God’s ideal (perfect) will. Ang mga utos Niya patungkol sa mga handog at mga alay ay hindi nangangahulugan na sapat ang mga ito para mapatawad ang kasalanan ng mga tao. “For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.” (Heb 10:4). Only the sacrifice of Christ can take away sin pero for the meantime, pinagbigyan ng Diyos ang mga paghahandog ng tao at Siya pa ang nagbigay ng utos kung paano ito gagawin. God’s ideal standard is for husband and wife not to be separated (Mk 10:9) pero binigay ng Diyos ang instruction about divorce in Deut 24:1-4 para pagbigyan ang katigasan ng ulo ng mga tao. As Jesus said, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment.” (Mk 10:5). By giving these laws, God chose to limit sin rather than prohibit it all together.

25aa.png
The practice of slavery was already an established system even before the Bible was written. God’s instructions through Moses made it more humane than abolishing it all at once. Ang isang kapwa Israelita ay hindi maaring maging permanenteng alipin (Deut 15:12). May utos din na dapat kupkupin ang mga alipin na tumakas sa kanilang mga amo (Deut 23:15). Slaves also must not be maltreated (Ex 21:20, 26). Sa NT, mas makikita ang ideal will ng Diyos patungkol dito. Paul and Peter urged slaves to be obedient to their masters (Eph 6:5; Titus 2:9; 1 Pet 2:18), hindi dahil pabor sila sa slavery pero dahil ganito na ang normal na sitwasyon sa panahon nila. Hindi naman gano’n kadali na baguhin bigla kung ano na ang nakasanayan ng lahat. Paul commanded the masters to treat their slaves justly and fairly, knowing that they also have a Master in heaven (Col 4:1). Sabi pa niya,“Masters, do the same to them” (Eph 6:9), in other words, just how the slaves serve them, they are also to serve the slaves (read v.5-8), for they must submit to one another (Eph 5:21). Makikita rito kung paano nire-reverse paunti-unti ng NT ang sistema noon! All social classes are broken down through Christ; “There is neither slave nor free… for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal 3:28). Kaya maiintindihan natin bakit sinabihan ni Paul si Philemon na tanggapin ang tumakas niyang alipin na si Onesimus bilang kapatid (Philemon v.16).

25aa.png
Question: If Christianity is against slavery, bakit hindi mababasa sa mga letters ni Paul ang pagtuligsa sa practice na ito? Sa panahon ng NT, hindi naman isang mabigat na issue ang slavery kaya halos wala namang lumalaban para i-abolish ito. Most slaves were household slaves at madalas na may mas mataas na antas sila ng pamumuhay kumpara sa mga pangkaraniwang tao. May pagkakataon din silang yumaman at marami sa kanila ay nagiging malaya rin naman sa katagalan. Household slavery then was still an unjust system but it is not similar to the typical forms of slavery in America or some parts of the world. Kung gusto ni Paul na ipa-abolish ang sistemang ito, dadalhin niya ang isyu sa may mga katungkulan sa lipunan at hindi natin maasahan na isulat niya ito sa kanyang mga personal letters na may mga amo at alipin na readers.
----------
Though the Bible does not support slavery, it does not deny that every believer is a slave of Christ. “But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life.” (Rom 6:22). Obviously, this is another issue.

CTTO
 

Attachments

oh i see so it does not support slavery as a whole but it does support a specific slavery bond between christ and christians and that would be acceptable
 
Plastic at hypocrite nmn yan mga critics na yan. They oppose slavery daw.
Pero in reality, we all participate in slavery of some form or another. We just found a way to justify them, and call it "employment".
People will refuse to acknowledge the equality Christianity has provided, kahit ineenjoy nila ito. Pananaw nila morally superior sila sa Bible.
Any economic system, pag nawalan ng moral principles, will devolve into something that ressembles slavery.
That is 100% certain.
As an atheist, I would still rather be a slave to an unseen entity, keep that illusion, than be a slave to another person.
 
Last edited:
Plastic at hypocrite nmn yan mga critics na yan. They oppose slavery daw.
Pero in reality, we all participate in slavery of some form or another. We just found a way to justify them, and call it "employment".
People will refuse to acknowledge the equality Christianity has provided, kahit ineenjoy nila ito. Pananaw nila morally superior sila sa Bible.
Any economic system, pag nawalan ng moral principles, will devolve into something that ressembles slavery.
That is 100% certain.
As an atheist, I would still rather be a slave to an unseen entity, keep that illusion, than be a slave to another person.
Paki elaborate ung pag compare mo ng slavery to employment
 
Paki elaborate ung pag compare mo ng slavery to employment
Employment is just a more palatable form of slavery.
It can range from the worst examples like conditions ng mga employee sa middle east (psuedo-slavery), and good ones like any good employers in general.

Back in the day, there is no such thing as "work-life balance". Everyone (that are not masters)are just slaves.
Then Abrahamic traditions just wanted 1 day off sa week to dedicated to worshipping God (sabbath). Then it progressed. The deal is, if you are not working, you are free from your master, then you are a slave of God. Moving forward today, employees na ang tawag satin. Whether you use the time to worship or not, we reap the benefit of not being a property of a master outside work. Outside work, we are all equal.

Now, we are playing into the quasi-religious system we call Capitalism.
Pros: slave and master can move up and down the hierarchy.

Cons: when devoid of any of the religious principles, as we already observed with some companies/employer, slave ka nanaman working 7 days a week.
 
Last edited:
Employment is just a more palatable form of slavery.
It can range from the worst examples like conditions ng mga employee sa middle east (psuedo-slavery), and good ones like any good employers in general.

Back in the day, there is no such thing as "work-life balance". Everyone (that are not masters)are just slaves.
Then Abrahamic traditions just wanted 1 day off sa week to dedicated to worshipping God (sabbath). Then it progressed. The deal is, if you are not working, you are free from your master, then you are a slave of God. Moving forward today, employees na ang tawag satin. Whether you use the time to worship or not, we reap the benefit of not being a property of a master outside work. Outside work, we are all equal.

Now, we are playing into the quasi-religious system we call Capitalism.
Pros: slave and master can move up and down the hierarchy.

Cons: when devoid of any of the religious principles, as we already observed with some companies/employer, slave ka nanaman working 7 days a week.
Again i have to disagree… employment is way way waaaaay different from slavery…

Even back in the day… may mga taong nagwowork for a fee.. yan ang pd mo icompare sa employment… pag may mistreatment na ng isang employee eh yun nag nagmumukhang slavery na…

Slavery is owning another human being as a property…malayong malayo yan sa employment..kaya nga inabolish eh…
 
U
Again i have to disagree… employment is way way waaaaay different from slavery…

Even back in the day… may mga taong nagwowork for a fee.. yan ang pd mo icompare sa employment… pag may mistreatment na ng isang employee eh yun nag nagmumukhang slavery na…

Slavery is owning another human being as a property…malayong malayo yan sa employment..kaya nga inabolish eh…
If slavery was still a thing, for sure maraming klase ng trabaho ang hindi matatawag na employment.

But for the sake of the argument eto,

Is it the "label" of ownership that makes a slave?
Or is it the life he lives as a slave that makes him so?

Did we abolish it because of the fact he was owned? Or did we abolish it because of the mistreatment?

If the goal here is being politically correct, well then tama ka magkaiba nga iyon.

But, put yourself in an employer's shoes. Wouldn't you want to exploit your employees as much as you can as long as its within the boundaries of the law?
 
Last edited:
Yeah, just to add, yung "Slavery" kasi sa Bible ay iba sa "Slavery" na alam natin ngayon. In other words, servanthood ang tinutukoy sa Bible sa tuwing kinu-kwento ito sa Bible. Pero naging iba lang din dahil sa mga ibang masters na masama ang trato sa slaves nila na inindicate ni TS sa taas gamit din yung supporting verses.

Like for example, ang Story ni Laban at Jacob. Si Jacob mismo ang nag-volunteer para maging slave kay Laban dahil may gusto syang makuha dito. You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

Another one is kapag ang isang tao, or babae usually, ay namatayan ng kapamilya or ng taong nagpo-provide ng pangangailangan nila, they chose to become a servant / slave dahil mas másáráp ang buhay compared sa magprovide ng sariling pangangailangan.
 
Plastic at hypocrite nmn yan mga critics na yan. They oppose slavery daw.
Pero in reality, we all participate in slavery of some form or another. We just found a way to justify them, and call it "employment".
People will refuse to acknowledge the equality Christianity has provided, kahit ineenjoy nila ito. Pananaw nila morally superior sila sa Bible.
Any economic system, pag nawalan ng moral principles, will devolve into something that ressembles slavery.
That is 100% certain.
As an atheist, I would still rather be a slave to an unseen entity, keep that illusion, than be a slave to another person.
the employer is just buying my services that i am selling, he doesn't own my life like your gods do hehe
 
the employer is just buying my services that i am selling, he doesn't own my life like your gods do hehe
What is stopping an employer to treat you as a slave?

The law, to be specific, Philippine bill of rights. Which was inspired by US bill of rights. Made by Jefferson, defining basic human rights as "God-given Rights".

Kahit Bible mismo kaya ka debunk.
Galatians 4:7: Now you are no longer a slave but God's own child. And since you are his child, God has made you his heir.
 
Last edited:
What is stopping an employer to treat you as a slave?

The law, to be specific, Philippine bill of rights. Which was inspired by US bill of rights. Made by Jefferson, defining basic human rights as "God-given Rights".

Kahit Bible mismo kaya ka debunk.
Galatians 4:7: Now you are no longer a slave but God's own child. And since you are his child, God has made you his heir.
hehe easy to name things but actually he owns your life, you were bought with a price to be his child to which you are now bound to act as one, he is not looking after your services but he is looking after your life, i can provide him clerical services but sadly he is not hiring a clerk hehe

on the other hand, he is buying lives and sadly i am not selling my life hehe
 
Last edited:
hehe easy to name things but actually he owns your life, you were bought with a price to be his child to which you are now bound to act as one, he is not looking after your services but he is looking after your life, i can provide him clerical services but sadly he is not hiring a clerk hehe

on the other hand, he is buying lives and sadly i am not selling my life hehe
I dont think your feelings are adding any value to the conversation, but, good for you. 👍
 
Sa akin , in a Christian society ay pansin ko na meron pa rin slavery ngayon katulad ng employer and employee type of settings. The only difference ay ngayon , siyempre , meron bayad na ang kung sino nagtatrabaho sa employer o sabihin natin na kung sino CEO sa prestige company na namamahala sa tauhan niya. Then naalala ko ang sinasabing slavery in the bible na parang somewhat meron kilalaman sa nangyayaring slavery sa bible from past up to present days. Nagkataon siguro ngayon ay advantageous kase ang tao na nakaka received ng cash galing sa ipinagtatrabahuan nila and so acceptable na rin siya as in. Hindi naman harmful ika nga.

Noon unang panahon ay wala naman bayad ang mga slavery. Ang nakakabenefit lang naman ay mga tipong pharoah o mga tipong meron matataas sa lipunan.

But ito lang ang naaalala ko sa abot ng aking makakaya based sa napanood ko somewhere online na during ancient egypt , meron itinatawag na household manager , well , katumbas siya ng CEO sa panahon natin ngayon but iyon nga lang ay walang CEO household businesses or whatever you called it. Bagkus meron lang tayong itinatawag lang na household na tipong wife na taga silbi ng husband sa bahay. Iyon lang ang meron in a present days.

Marami silang slaves as in. Tipong madaming slaves na taga handa ng mga pagkain , taga asikaso lahat at maraming iba pa. Pagkatapos ang naalala ko na kapag matagal ng slaves ang tao ay pwede siya umangat or ang katumbas sa atin ngayon ay promotion. Hindi na siya matatawag na slaves bagkus siya na ngayon ang taga manage ng mga slaves o siya na ngayon ang tagapamahala pagdating sa household stuff. Siyempre ang taga pamahala ay it seems siya ang King of the household or ika nga Queen of the household kung nagkaganun. Marami silang slaves.

Iyon lang ay no cash involved.

Kung baga kapag sobrang laki o extravagant ang bahay na tinitirhan ng mismong tao at sa iyo na lahat ng ari-arian pati ang buong area ng lupain , maraming slaves malamang o kung baga maraming tauhan ang kikilos o magmamaniubra sa bawat sulok ng bahay na tinitirhan at mismong tao nakatira sa mala-palasyong bahay ay malamang taga utos lang siya ng mga slaves niya.

Katumbas iyan ng CEO natin sa panahon ngayon. Siympre , sa panahon ngayon ay natural , ang mga CEO ay sadyang they own business and they just own property and of course , lots of money para pambayad sa tauhan niya.

Of course , hindi niya bahay ang mga mala building na pang office na meron malamang. Uuwi pa rin siya sa sariling bahay para meron taga silbi ng pagkain sa kanya if lalake siya pero kapag babae naman ay dalawang trabaho niya if ever lang naman like nagtatrabaho siya sa labas and at the same time ay nagtatrabaho din siya sa bahay. Maliban kung meron siyang househusband na taga asikaso ng pagkain para sa wife niya kapag galing sa trabaho pero kung wala. Wala talaga.

Ang abrahamic religion lang ang alam ko na mahilig sa property and ownership. Kahit husband and wife ay property and ownership. Kailangan without s(e)x dahil more on property and ownership. Pagkatapos nauso na rin ang katagang it must be vlrgin kapag mag-aasawa ang lalake at babae and maraming iba pa. Mahilig sila.


 
Last edited:
Ang malaking difference lang sa slave vs employee, ang employee may free-time, ang slave on duty sya all the time.

Pag dating kasi sa payment, whether cash or goods, both employee and master have the moral obligation ibigay yung needs ng slave. Both master and employer has an interest to provide minimum by default, and increase provisions as a form of reward.

Ang abrahamic religion lang ang alam ko na mahilig sa property and ownership. Kahit husband and wife ay property and ownership. Kailangan without s(e)x dahil more on property and ownership. Pagkatapos nauso na rin ang katagang it must be vlrgin kapag mag-aasawa ang lalake at babae and maraming iba pa. Mahilig sila.

You say it as if Abrahamic religions invented this practice. Kahit nga Japan na nakahiwalay sa mundo naging ganito ang practice in the past. At isa pa, kahit noong time period na yan, women becomes the mans "superior" within marriage, hanggang ngayon. Which is illustrated on a game of chess, kung saan yung queen ang pinaka powerful piece.

Pagdating nmn sa Islam, at ung fact na maraming silang asawa, on the surface mukha din property ng lalake ang mga asawa nila. Pero polytheism kasi ang nakita nilang paraan to prevent rapě. Obligated yung lalake na gawing asawa kung pag nakipagsêx siya sa babae. It served as a deterant to răpe.
Sanay lang tlga tayo sa monogamy kaya akala natin in favor sa lalaki ung system nila.
 
Last edited:
U
If slavery was still a thing, for sure maraming klase ng trabaho ang hindi matatawag na employment.

But for the sake of the argument eto,

Is it the "label" of ownership that makes a slave?
Or is it the life he lives as a slave that makes him so?

Did we abolish it because of the fact he was owned? Or did we abolish it because of the mistreatment?

If the goal here is being politically correct, well then tama ka magkaiba nga iyon.

But, put yourself in an employer's shoes. Wouldn't you want to exploit your employees as much as you can as long as its within the boundaries of the law?
Nope… employment and slavery once existed at the same time back in the day… there is a clear distinction between the two… lalo na sa treatment…may protection ang isang employee na wala para sa isang slave…

Yes, being “owned as a property” is the core principle that makes a slave vulnerable to mistreatment…

Magkaiba talaga un and its not about being PC lang.. employment is a contract between two individuals where one pays for the service, skills, time, expertise, etc of another.. slavery is owning another person as property which pretty much u can do as u will… and beyond mistreatment din eh its a fact nman na most slaves were forced to be in that situation.

Kagaya nung sabi mo about core message…is this a matter of proper labeling or being politically correct or is this a matter of slavery actually is?

As an employer, i will exploit and utilize my employees within the contract we both agreed with and of cors within the boundaries of law as well…

Speaking of laws… ung bible laws on slavery…is that a justified treatment of another human being just because its within those laws??

What is stopping an employer to treat you as a slave?

The law, to be specific, Philippine bill of rights. Which was inspired by US bill of rights. Made by Jefferson, defining basic human rights as "God-given Rights".

Kahit Bible mismo kaya ka debunk.
Galatians 4:7: Now you are no longer a slave but God's own child. And since you are his child, God has made you his heir.
The contract between him and the employee, the law, or even him just being a decent human being…

With regards sa law about being god given rights then quoting a bible verse right after… bible god lang ba tayo aappeal?? What about those who believes in another god??

Bakit di natin isinasama sa batas natin ung mga batas sa bible kasama ung sa slavery??
 
Last edited:
Nope… employment and slavery once existed at the same time back in the day… there is a clear distinction between the two… lalo na sa treatment…may protection ang isang employee na wala para sa isang slave…

Yes, being “owned as a property” is the core principle that makes a slave vulnerable to mistreatment…

Magkaiba talaga un and its not about being PC lang.. employment is a contract between two individuals where one pays for the service, skills, time, expertise, etc of another.. slavery is owning another person as property which pretty much u can do as u will… and beyond mistreatment din eh its a fact nman na most slaves were forced to be in that situation.
Tingin ko sinabi ko na na tama ka kung definitions lng pag uusapan natin.

Kagaya nung sabi mo about core message…is this a matter of proper labeling or being politically correct or is this a matter of slavery actually is?
It is a matter of what immorality is attached to slavery, the same immorality we are accusing the bible of. The essence of it.

As an employer, i will exploit and utilize my employees within the contract we both agreed with and of cors within the boundaries of law as well…
So, it is clear na kung walang laws, employers will likely treat employees not much different from slaves. Ownership does not even matter.
At gaya nga ng sabi ko earlier, ung mga laws lang natin nagpprotect satin sa ganyan practice. Which is derived from the idea na every man is "equal under God"

Speaking of laws… ung bible laws on slavery…is that a justified treatment of another human being just because its within those laws??

Are we going to subject it to the morality of their time? Or our time?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top