Slavery in the bible.

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟143,395.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
it isn't as simple as slavery is bad, God chose to continue slavery, therefore God is bad.

Well, honestly, it actually is that simple.
You are welcome to give an actual argument for why it apparantly wouldn't be that simple and I'll listen to that argument with an open mind.

But just saying that "it isn't that simple", will not cut it. Especially not when it does actually seem to be that simple.

X is immoral
Y thinks X is fine
Therefor, Y is immoral.

Kind of hard to argue with that logic, it seems to me...
Let's substitute the parameters with actual things, for reference:

- Genocide is immoral
- Bart thinks genocide is fine.
- Therefore, Bart is immoral

So, what exactly is wrong with this trail of thought?

A person would need to be aware of His motives and how they are incorporated into the market place of our free moral agency as civilization progresses and evolves.

The bible doesn't mention any motives or reasons.
It just condones and regulates slavery. Unconditionally.
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,477
18,456
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,462.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
The bits that are about slavery are simply not important to my Christian faith, one way or another. Christianity, as I practice it, is not a religion primarily about the proper ordering of society. We Lutherans distinguish between the good order of society, which is understood by all, including nonbelievers, with the forgiveness of sins, which is what we focus on in the Bible.

- Genocide is immoral
- Bart thinks genocide is fine.
- Therefore, Bart is immoral.

God cannot be immoral because God determines what is moral. You may not like that answer but that's what we Lutherans believe. There is a qualitative difference between the Creator and the creature, and we are not capable of judging him, nor is it right to do so. That's part of the basic Creator-creature distinction.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: YouAreAwesome
Upvote 0

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,412
15,559
Colorado
✟428,018.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
The same stories that you see endorsing slavery, other actual slaves read as a story that gave them hope that in fact God was on their side. Sort of torpedoes your idea that the Bible is about endorsing slavery.
Well obviously the Bible both endorses (explicitly) and rejects (tho not explicitly) slavery.

To come out on the right side of this issue as a Christian you obviously have to view morality as evolving, and not fixed.

This is a huge problem for many many Christians who would prefer a fixed moral star for guidance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YouAreAwesome
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟143,395.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
The bits that are about slavery are simply not important to my Christian faith, one way or another.

Surely. I bet you feel the same way about the god-commanded indiscriminate killing of babies, toddlers and cattle.


Christianity, as I practice it, is not a religion primarily about the proper ordering of society. We Lutherans distinguish between the good order of society, which is understood by all, including nonbelievers, with the forgiveness of sins, which is what we focus on in the Bible.

Indeed. In my experience, most christians tend to engage in that kind of cherry picking.
And don't get me wrong, it's not an accusation or blame or something. I actually applaud the practice. The alternative, doesn't seem that attractive. I'm very glad that the moral compass of the average christian, is superior to the moral code exhibited in the scriptures.

The world surely would be a better place if certain muslim groups would do the same...

God cannot be immoral because God determines what is moral.

Then.... the practice of slavery is moral.
Myeah....

You may not like that answer but that's what we Lutherans believe. There is a qualitative difference between the Creator and the creature, and we are not capable of judging him, nor is it right to do so. That's part of the basic Creator-creature distinction.

Sure. But god's law as laid down in the bible, has no issues with slavery.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YouAreAwesome
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,477
18,456
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,462.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
You seem to pick the most difficult parts of the Bible and try to portray us as hypocritical because we don't follow them the way you expect us to. That's not a very charitable way to deal with us, as it assumes a position of moral and intellectual superiority. We are a peculiar people and we do not follow your ways. Different does not mean inferior.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Graydon Booth
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟143,395.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
You seem to pick the most difficult parts of the Bible and try to label us as hypocrites because we don't follow them the way you expect us to.

This thread IS about the "slavery in the bible". I'm not "picking" anything with some kind of hidden agenda. I'm just discussing the thread topic.

If anything, it's you who seems to avoid the topic like the plague.

That's not a very charitable way to deal with us, as it assumes a position of moral and intellectual superiority.

I already told you that
- this is about what the bible says, not about what christians say or how they behave
- I am of the opinion that the average christian's, as well as my own, moral compass is vastly superior to the moral compass exhibited in such bible passages.

So I'm not dealing with you or christians. I'm dealing with what the bible says about slavery.
I already acknowledged that I realise that you, and most people like you, don't consider slavery a moral practice. And that's a good thing.

But the bible does. The bible has no issues with it.

It is the bible's stance on this issue that is being discussed here.

And if the premise is that the bible reflects God and that God is "incapable of being immoral"... and the bible has no issues with morality, then we have a contradiction problem that needs resolving.

And yes, I like to tie it in also with the "moral argument" from christian apologists, who want to hold up the bible as "the moral standard". This is a problem, since the bible condones slavery (and genocide and...)

We are a peculiar people and we do not follow your ways. That does not give you the right to persecute us.

For goodness sake.... I'm not "persecuting" anyone.

You are a nice guy. You think slavery is immoral. It's fine I get it.

Your bible doesn't think slavery is immoral. Your bible condones and regulates slavery, unconditionally. It doesn't put a "limit" on it like "until you find a better economic model" or whatever other excuses have been given in this thread here.


It's remarkable how dificult this subject is to discuss with bible believing christians.
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,477
18,456
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,462.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
I don't hold the Bible up as an absolute moral standard in the sense you are assuming. Some Christians do, many actually do not. It's not consistent with how my denomination, or many others like it, understands ethics. Ethics in our denomination involves study of the Scriptures, certainly, but it also involves theology and community moral deliberation.

Christianity is not just a religion about a book, but its about a people, and a person (Jesus). Most of us are not like Muslims that believe the Bible came down from heaven written in God's own hand. It contains God's Word, certainly, but it is a Word that is expressed through particular historical circumstances and times.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Graydon Booth
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟143,395.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
I don't hold the Bible up as an absolute moral standard in the sense you are assuming. Some Christians do, many actually do not.

In my experience, most christians do.

In fact, most christians I engage, actually aren't even fully aware of what the bible says about slavery.

Christianity is not just a religion about a book, but its about a people, and a person (Jesus).

A person (Jesus) that doesn't have any issues with slavery either.
Just thought I'ld mention it.

Most of us are not like Muslims that believe the Bible came down from heaven written in God's own hand. It contains God's Word, certainly, but it is a Word that is expressed through particular historical circumstances and times.

So how do you go about deciding which parts are relevant today?
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,477
18,456
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,462.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
So how do you go about deciding which parts are relevant today?

We have a lectionary cycle of readings every Sunday and the pastor gives a sermon based off that day's reading. The cycle of readings are chosen to give a broad coverage of the Bible and to be in accord with the traditional liturgical calendar usage, but respect is also given to modern trends in theology in the selection of the readings.

We also have Bible studies from time to time that involve discussion of biblical texts that we read.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Graydon Booth
Upvote 0

Allandavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 30, 2016
8,056
6,929
70
Sydney
✟230,565.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I don't hold the Bible up as an absolute moral standard in the sense you are assuming. Some Christians do, many actually do not. It's not consistent with how my denomination, or many others like it, understands ethics. Ethics in our denomination involves study of the Scriptures, certainly, but it also involves theology and community moral deliberation.

Christianity is not just a religion about a book, but its about a people, and a person (Jesus). Most of us are not like Muslims that believe the Bible came down from heaven written in God's own hand. It contains God's Word, certainly, but it is a Word that is expressed through particular historical circumstances and times.

It sounds like you are saying that you disregard or downplay those sections that don’t sit with you morally...is that right? Then how do you justify their inclusion? Were they put there in error, in your opinion? Remember, you folk posit that those words, while written by men, are inspired by a god. Why would the god inspire those men to write those things? More than that, why would he inspire them to quote him about the regulation of slavery, if he didn’t condone it?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Norbert L

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Mar 1, 2009
2,856
1,064
✟560,360.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Well, honestly, it actually is that simple.
You are welcome to give an actual argument for why it apparantly wouldn't be that simple and I'll listen to that argument with an open mind.

But just saying that "it isn't that simple", will not cut it. Especially not when it does actually seem to be that simple.

X is immoral
Y thinks X is fine
Therefor, Y is immoral.

Kind of hard to argue with that logic, it seems to me...
Let's substitute the parameters with actual things, for reference:

- Genocide is immoral
- Bart thinks genocide is fine.
- Therefore, Bart is immoral

So, what exactly is wrong with this trail of thought?



The bible doesn't mention any motives or reasons.
It just condones and regulates slavery. Unconditionally.
I believe there is no provable answer coming to the question of, whether human civilization could of progressed and evolved without the institution of slavery? I would say given that we know the ancient city of Rome wouldn't function without its' slaves, the condoning and regulation of slavery was a necessary part of ancient societies and their economy. It's really a testament about mankind and how long it took for us to rid ourselves of that behavior.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Graydon Booth
Upvote 0

YouAreAwesome

☝✌
Oct 17, 2016
2,181
968
Lismore, Australia
✟94,543.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
From a christian believer's perspective though, thinking like that seems to be undermining the entire religion. Because the idea there is that the authors just wrote down what they believed to be true and that what they believed isn't necessarily true.

I find this a really interesting discussion in and of itself. I mean, what is the bible? I would say it is the history of some interactions between God and man, a record of the covenants between God and man, and the surrounding literature that comes with those covenants--it also records some of the life of Jesus and some history thereafter. I say some, because God has interacted with mankind much more than is recorded in the bible--the bible even attests to this fact when it talks of Jesus doing much more than is recorded in the bible (kind of obvious that God has done many things that aren't in the bible but anyway...).

Is there a problem if what the authors believed wasn't necessarily true? I don't think so. We could go through book by book and explain why this isn't a problem but let's just look at a few. The book of Revelation for example, is a vision. John recorded the vision he had. Done. No opinion there, except for the interpretation--MUCH opinion in the interpretation! Okay, how about something like Romans. First we look at Paul the author and learn about him. He was a Jew who converted to christianity after encountering Jesus in Person. He changed from killing christians, to becoming a christian himself in the space of a few minutes. It was about 15 years after or something similar before Paul wrote Romans. He had spent time with the disciples of Jesus and with his training in the law and his insight from the disciples about the teachings of Jesus, he wrote Romans to his fellow Jews. Therefore, in Romans there is incredible teaching and insight, but also a little opinion thrown in. Then we get together and discuss these things as a group. Which parts were opinion, which parts are true? How does it fit in with the rest of the history between God and man? Is it cultural or applicable to all time? There is room for questioning and learning. We learn of what Jesus accomplished through Paul's writings pretty much. Do you find this a problem?
 
Upvote 0

essentialsaltes

Stranger in a Strange Land
Oct 17, 2011
32,822
36,128
Los Angeles Area
✟820,775.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
In honor of the day...

"Thanksgiving was, above all, a New England holiday, and New England was abolitionist territory,"

Gov. Henry A. Wise, a slave owner, described Thanksgiving as a "theatrical national claptrap" that has "aided other causes [i.e. abolition] in setting thousands of pulpits to preaching 'Christian politics' instead of humbly letting the carnal Kingdom alone and preaching singly Christ crucified."

That is, abolition is not part of the gospel, merely 'Christian politics'.

See also, the Pie of Northern Aggression.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: durangodawood
Upvote 0

Allandavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 30, 2016
8,056
6,929
70
Sydney
✟230,565.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I believe there is no provable answer coming to the question of, whether human civilization could of progressed and evolved without the institution of slavery? I would say given that we know the ancient city of Rome wouldn't function without its' slaves, the condoning and regulation of slavery was a necessary part of ancient societies and their economy. It's really a testament about mankind and how long it took for us to rid ourselves of that behavior.

Several of you are running right past the point.

It is not a matter of whether not HUMANS felt that slavery was appropriate...obviously, for a considerable period, they did...

No, this is about the issue of A GOD condoning the practice...!
 
  • Agree
Reactions: DogmaHunter
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,477
18,456
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,462.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
It sounds like you are saying that you disregard or downplay those sections that don’t sit with you morally...is that right? Then how do you justify their inclusion? Were they put there in error, in your opinion? Remember, you folk posit that those words, while written by men, are inspired by a god. Why would the god inspire those men to write those things? More than that, why would he inspire them to quote him about the regulation of slavery, if he didn’t condone it?

Modern societies regulate tobacco, without necessarily condoning it. Regulation does not mean condoning the behavior, it merely means permitting the behavior.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Strathos

No one important
Dec 11, 2012
12,663
6,531
God's Earth
✟263,276.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Modern societies regulate tobacco, without necessarily condoning it. Regulation does not mean condoning the behavior, it merely means permitting the behavior.

Same with abortion, war, etc.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Graydon Booth
Upvote 0

Allandavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 30, 2016
8,056
6,929
70
Sydney
✟230,565.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Modern societies regulate tobacco, without necessarily condoning it. Regulation does not mean condoning the behavior, it merely means permitting the behavior.

Oh good grief...

If you permit something it means that you accept that it can take place...and that’s what condoning means...!
 
Upvote 0

Dirk1540

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 19, 2015
8,162
13,527
Jersey
✟778,285.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Let's be a little more consistent if we can, in how many ways throughout history have citizens pretty much been a slave to their government/king/oligarchs/etc? In many ways you should also raise hell that the God of the Bible did not command the overthrowing of governments all around him if you are on a war path about the slavery issue. The ruling class has always been a sort of macro form of slavery. God's main mission was more far sighted then our time here in this world where corruption & manipulation was always the norm. We actually live in one of the easiest governments in human history. But how bad were Old Testament times ANE ruling classes? Were they really not a master/slave set up themselves?

I'm sure Jesus could have spoken for days berating Caesar, yet he said "Render unto Caesar..." as if he didn't want to bite off more than the mission could chew. However he DID scold tax collectors! So how do you harmonize that? Probably because he had to walk a fine line within the garbage man made institutional realities that Jesus saw all around him. I assume the Old Testament times also required a bit of fine line walking within a worldwide social set up where God hated slavery, but it was so intertwined with the current reality that it would have been too much to attempt to overthrow it without creating too much of a diversion for the mission. I just read of a random time/statistic that Athens (who actually thought of themselves as a Democracy lol) had 400,000 inhabitants, and 250,000 of them were slaves! It could definitely be the case that a push to end slavery would have overshadowed the main message (a message that is much more far sighted than our time here on Earth, where unfortunately the reality of slavery was like breathing at the time).

This would be somewhat like Jesus saying that divorce is not good, but because of the hardness of your hearts it was permitted under certain conditions. The rules in the Bible on how to practice slavery were there to be contrasted with current slavery practices in the ANE, contrasted against much more brutal practices. The ANE had lots of contact with each other. I think a lot of people think of Israel and her neighbors like America and Mexico, when it's much more analogous to small European countries that have way more interactions and commonalities with each other.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Allandavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 30, 2016
8,056
6,929
70
Sydney
✟230,565.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
In many ways you should also raise hell that the God of the Bible did not command the overthrowing of governments all around him if you are on a war path about the slavery issue.

He did...when it suited him!

He destroyed the rule of the Egyptian pharaoh. He firebombed Sodom and Gomorrah. Joshua at Jericho? And there are many other examples of him ordering humans to do his overthrowing for him.

Avoids the issue of condoning slavery, however...

a worldwide social set up where God hated slavery, but it was so intertwined with the current reality that it would have been too much to attempt to overthrow it without creating too much of a diversion for the mission.

What...?? Too much for a god...??
 
  • Winner
Reactions: DogmaHunter
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums