this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2026
1064 points (98.9% liked)
Political Memes
12383 readers
2601 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
1) Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
2) No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
3) Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
4) No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
5) No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That's because slavery in that culture was not what we think of when we think of slavery today. There are numerous passages throughout the Old and New Testaments detailing how slaves were to be treated with the utmost respect, which was otherwise unheard of in antiquity. To give just one example:
– Deuteronomy 15:12-18
[a]: Or sells himself
[b,c]: Or servent. The Hebrew term ébed is used to describe a wide range of socioeconomic roles. (The Greek word doulos in the New Testament is similar, as in Colossians 4:1.)
God wanted them to be treated as family. It was basically a structured mutual aid partnership.
Criticism without research doesn't mean much.
also note, these the rules are for hebrew slaves
Oh yeah that's right. Different rules for Hebrew slaves.
Oh I'm sorry is that quote supposed to make slavery seem ok?
Guys it's not a big deal because the Bible had rules about buying and selling humans for labor and profit.
Except you skipped Exodus 21:20
Fuck right off with this "slaves were meant to be treated like family" revisionist bullshit
I'm sure you need to tell yourself that to feel ok about your hateful, awful, vacuous religion, but it's insultingy ahistorical.
Even your own fucking book doesn't agree
Does your family also have a clause where if they get pregnant, you get to own and enslave the offspring? Wow super family like, guys (see edit below for text of Leviticus 25:44-55)
Your reply frankly disgusts me.
Without research... Sure you want to go there bud? Sure you don't want your disgusting beliefs strewn about this public forum for all to see?
I bet I know more about it than you do. The thing is, I'm also familiar with (like actual, real) history so I'm aware of what slavery actually was like in those times. Not through the mouth of a lying, destructive, bigoted book. But you have no interest in that do you?
Time to go back to your pastor with some questions, big guy.
Edit:
Here's the verse to backup the clause I mentioned above:
Leviticus 25:44-55
Fucking gross. "Don't treat one another ruthlessly, however, you are allowed to rape your slaves and then own their children"
You can disagree with me as strongly as you want, and I'm still happy to discuss all day long. But, the impression I'm getting from your hostility is that you don't want to have a discussion—you do not want to earn my respect and change my mind, you just want to be right. Am I correct in that or am I misinterpreting you? I mean that genuinely, no sarcasm or aggression. I did already read all that you've referenced, I've done some further research, and I have more thoughts that I'd love to share, but only if you're interested.
Also for what it's worth, I'll be praying for you friend regardless of how our interaction here goes. 🙂
Oh now hold on, the verses you quoted were missing some context. Let me add some:
Exodus 21:3
So you can rape your slaves and then own the offspring. Why would you choose to leave that part out and then call me uneducated?
And as the other comment said, this is specifically about Hebrew slaves. Which is interesting since the other verse I posted seemed pretty clear about picking up slaves in conquered lands (fucking ew).
So not only is it evil and gross, but there is a double standard.
But that said you're still allowed to rape them and enslave their kids, so Yahweh truly is fair.
Edit: I just saw the part about how the relationship between a slave and their owner was like a mutual aid relationship. You should be fucking ashamed of yourself.
I tried to give as much context as I could without creating an absolute wall of text, which is why I didn't quote the entire chapter. If you're not earnest about continually trying to learn more and identify your own biases, that makes me really sad, but I'm not dumb enough to think I can change your mind. I'll try to provide some context anyway, for anyone else reading your comment.
Nowhere does the Bible condone rape. Period. Such behavior is always very clearly defined to be sin that must be atoned for, including by stoning when called for. (See the latter half of Deuteronomy 22 for a good overview.) Arranged marriage was a thing in the Old Testament, but the framework was very strict to avoid abuse.
Yes, rules for non-Hebrew slaves were different from Hebrew slaves, but the standards for how they were to be treated were still higher than elsewhere.
Any competant philosopher, historian, or sociologist will tell you that you can't judge past cultures by the morals of today. Yeah, picking up slaves from conquered lands today would be considered barbaric, but that's not the culture they lived in. Lots more I want to say about how that changed in the New Testament (Galatians 3:28, etc). But again, I don't like walls of text in comments. I'm happy to answer DMs all day long.
Where did I call you uneducated? If that's what you got, I can assure you it didn't come from me. You are free to believe what you wish, I can't nor would I ever wish to force you.
The old testament is brutal, maybe ease off the apologetics trying to sell some 'the bible is nice' if you squint meme, we even get into genocidal rape territory and having sex with your slaves is just how they roll in texts trying to sound old and brutal.
There is nothing to indicate 'the bible' had any impact at all on life prior to 300BCE or so afaiu, it really kicks in around the Hasmonean period as novel sacred history which was high fashion. You'd be as well reading the Qur'an or Geoffrey of Monmouth for history.
The concern here is more you seem to be running with a OT like a history book: Torah, prophets, Ezra, Nehemiah etc isn't history and the oldest sources we have are Hasmonean era when Torah observance pops up in the archaeological record.
Early Christians often don't seem overly concerned about the flesh, outwith liturgy, and reports indicate slaves, kids and women were a big part of the movement....Gregory of Nyssa in the 4th century one of the first to really break down the insanity of the practice but his mariology wouldn't go viral in the west like the horrors of Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin etc.
In the western tradition it's not really properly deconstructed until Jefferey Bentham or so when Aquinas's homophobia was getting a kicking too.
You make good points, you definitely know some historical context that I do not. And, I agree with you that the Bible is not nice. I wholeheartedly believe that trying to paint it as such completely undermines its core message. Yet I admit that, as is human nature, my tendancy is to shy away from sections that I don't have an adequate underatanding to discuss. I apologize if it seemed like I was trying to whitewash anything, it wasn't my intent.
I know that biblical scholars use lots of extrabiblical sources to gain historical context, but I'm just your average burnt-out former gifted kid. History was one of my least favorite subjects growing up. What I know is mostly from impulsive internet searches and the few sermons that my ADHD brain found engaging enough to retain.