slavery was diff then, i guess? Ppl sold themselves into slavery, at least also? Plus, what is often taken as "endorsement" now might arguably be attempts to limit abuse of slaves; an eye for an eye might make the whole world blind, but thats better than dead maybe?

@bbyrd009 - No, not of any significance.

Lev 25:44-46

44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

@RussRAB "No, not of any significance."
yeh, pretty much major significance, i'm pretty sure anyway

@bbyrd009 - Your denial is interesting in the face of Biblical passages refuting your assertion. You obviously need to study more. The scenario you mention only applied to Jews. Non-Jewsish slaves had a whole different set of rules according to the Bible as well as historical commentary. These rules for non-Jewish slaves were much closer to American slavery where individuals bought as slaves were to remain slaves their entire lives, and children born to slaves were also slaves of the slaveholder. Your counter argument sounds much more like Chtistian apologetics. What you say sounds like something from an apologetics source attempting to obfuscate the facts.

@RussRAB i say different mostly bc of the context in which those are taken, as one of condoning slavery, when they might also be viewed as putting limitations on what was then an entrenched institution, ppl even selling themselves into slavery, yeh

so, not disagreeing with you, but i think like the whole rest of the world had a pretty bad slavery "problem" then?

but also, provision is made for a slave who didnt want to be freed, eh
so its just never as one-dimensional as one might imagine

@bbyrd009 - Again, a slave "who didnt want to be freed" or who sold themselves into slavery only applied to Jewish slaves who retained all sorts of right. Non-Jewish slaves were a different story entirely.

I would agree that the world tended to be more barbaric in terms of slavery in bygone days. We have hopefully made progress in how we regard one another. Judging the behavior and rhetoric of some in recent events, the jury is still out. But that is no excuse for endorsements of slavery in terms of directives from God as found in the Bible. Within this context, God is supposed to be the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow and is supposedly not subject to the context of what was being done by others at any period in history. Your context argument undermines claims of an eternal entity - God - separate from the imaginings of human creators.

So I go back to my original statement: "The fact that Jesus never condemned slavery and said things implying an endorsement of it is one of the problems with Christianity." Nothing you have said mitigates this statement but only serves to attempt to obfuscate it. American Christian slaveholders used the Bible's directives concerning slavery and the fact that even Jesus - who is God - never condemned it to justify the practice in the US. Nothing you have said or can say changes this fact. The fact that you continue to present the rules from the Bible for endentured servitude for the payment of debts for Jewish individuals as if it also applied to the enslavenent of non-Jews is just dishonest.

@RussRAB well, many like to call an eye for an eye an endorsement, too, i guess, but that doesn’t mean it is, for sure
seems like a pretty clear violation of love your neighbor as yourself to me, but i know better than to argue with a believer, and tbh thats about all i know.

I guess some ppl buy slaves just to free them, too

Jesus is God? I thought you were an atheist?
And anyone can call themselves "Christian" if they want, right; so seems to me that they have been outed as hypocrites, regardless of our differing opinions otherwise?

We operate under a “wage slave” system now, you think that’s any better?

@bbyrd009 - Yes, according the Bible and traditional Christian theology, Jesus is God - or did you forget that context. Whatever my belief, that is the Christian belief. That the endorsement of the brutal enslaverment of others violate the Love thy Neighbor Directive? Absolutely! But so does the genocide of Canaanites violate the just issued Commandment Thou Shalt Not Kill. These are all reasons why the Bible cannot be trusted as a moral authority and it is the context of this whole thread.

Why are adding/changing your comment after I respond to you? No more.

@RussRAB ah well wadr you have inferred “endorsement” that is almost surely meant to be a first attempt at limiting slavery, “brutal” is also a characterization that may not always or even usually obtain, right, I mean suicide nets under iPhone manufacture windows is hardly less brutal, and slaves who did not want to be released were not limited to Jews I guess, either?

And the Trinitarian argument I’ll leave to you and the other believers, personally I’m not a buyer, but in the right context—which I suspect most Xtians lack—I guess it’s possible?

The “genocide of canaanites” is known as Conquest Genre, and wadr every contemporary knew better than to read that literally, the same way you would know how to read “The White Sox annihilated the Yankees today”

Whether the blame lies with Jesus or just the surviving mythology, what's priceless is that either way, it invalidates them both

WHAAAT???...EDUCATE CHRISTIANS???...thats just frikin NUTS

The ignorant wrong-headedness is amazing which equates ancient with wise, or tradition/great multitudes of subscribers with good/right.