Is Slavery Moral?

[Landon Caeli]

How do Catholics know which parts of the Bible to follow or not to follow?

The Catholic Church composed the bible!

It happened at the Council of Carthage and was subsequently approved by Pope Innocent I.

...That is how Christianity recieved the New Testament whether anyone likes it or not. Sorry, but facts are facts.

 

[dmmesdale]

I would like to see credible evidence demonstrating this claim?

There is plenty of evidence fo the claim. What you do not have is any actual evidence the Exodus did not happen. Critics are entitled to their opinions, not their facts. Opinions are not evidence.

 

[Kemet]

Eye for eye.

Yep!!!

 

[Kemet]

Then why were the Israelites liberated from Egyptian slavery? All the slave owners agree with you. Are you a Bible scholar? No.

Immoral relative to what? Why should your opinion carry any weight in a world of natural where humans are big-brained apes and nothing more? How bout the Hittites. Is it immoral relative to the Hittite law code?

194. If a free man pick up female slaves, now one, now another, there is no punishment for intercourse. If brothers sleep with a free woman, together, or one after the other, there is no punishment. If father and son sleep with a female slave or harlot, together, or one after the other, there is no punishment.

199. If anyone have intercourse with a pig or a dog, he shall die. If a man have intercourse with a horse or a mule, there is no punishment. But he shall not approach the king, and shall not become a priest. If an ox spring upon a man for intercourse, the ox shall die but the man shall not die. One sheep shall be fetched as a substitute for the man, and they shall kill it. If a pig spring upon a man for intercourse, there is no punishment. If any man have intercourse with a foreign woman and pick up this one, now that one, there is no punishment.
-----------------------
In literary and historical analysis, presentism is the anachronistic introduction of present-day ideas and perspectives into depictions or interpretations of the past. Some modern historians seek to avoid presentism in their work because they consider it a form of cultural bias, and believe it creates a distorted understanding of their subject matter.[1] The practice of presentism is regarded by some as a common fallacy in historical writing.[2]

Whether it is or isn't supported by Kemetic dynastic history and anthropological evidence "outside" the Bible: What does Israelites being freed from slavery in ancient Kemet, have to do with the slavery passages in the Christian Bible and Tanakh of Judaism (especially the Bible), that read like an operational manual with instructions and guidelines for the enslavement of humans, including children?

Are you aware of the significant number and type of slavery passages that are in the Bible?

Regarding scholarship:
You could be a scholar depending on your length of time and intensity of study in a particular academic subject--resulting in your profound knowledge of that subject matter.

Do you consider slavery in any form aberrant and immoral?

Presentism has nothing to do with the extant (still in existence), straightforward, unambiguous and lucid slavery passages in the Bible and Tanakh of Judaism.

 

[dmmesdale]

Have you actually read the Bible?

Of course. Many times.

Whether it is or isn't supported by Kemetic dynastic history and anthropological evidence "outside" the Bible:

Not needed. You have plenty of writted accounts over a period of time which attests to the Exodus as history. This is what you wrote.

The Bible is an extant book, slavery is condoned and promoted in the Bible.

If that is true then God would not have freed the Israelites. Your assessment also ignores slavery was universal in antiquity and far more brutal in other countries at that time. That is why the Hittite code was included and ignored which is typical of hyper critics. It was sex on demand for slave girls both from fathers and sons.

What does Israelites being freed from slavery in ancient Kemet, have to do with the slavery passages in the Christian Bible and Tanakh of Judaism (especially the Bible), that read like an operational manual with instructions and guidelines for the enslavement of humans, including children?
Are you aware of the significant number and type of slavery passages that are in the Bible?

Yup now give me five examples of slave liberation from the Old Testament. Have you actually read the bible?

Do you consider slavery in any form aberent and immoral?

On what natural basis is it wrong for big-brained apes to own other big-brained apes? It is your camp which reduces humans to the level of animals. Not ours.

Presentism has nothing to do

It does and don't try to sleaze out of it.

with the extant (still in existence), straightforward, unambiguous and lucid slavery passages in the Bible and Tanakh of Judaism.

Have you done an extensive study on them? From credible sources? What is your source of information? Evilbible? Or some other bible despiser non academic site?

You posted:
"Immoral relative to what? Why should your opinion carry any weight in a world of natural where humans are big-brained apes and nothing more?"

You left out the Hittite law code why? Cherry picking? Don't want to do the compare analysis? It is a valid question and would like a rational answer absent appeals to outrage, please?

Do you actually believe that you are nothing but a big-brained ape and nothing more?

No.

 

[cvanwey]

There is plenty of evidence fo the claim. What you do not have is any actual evidence the Exodus did not happen. Critics are entitled to their opinions, not their facts.

Wow, that could not have been more deliberate, with the 'shifting' for the burden of proof. By default, nothing happens.

There exists little to no evidence, outside claims from the Bible itself, that Jews were enslaved in this region, and in this claimed time period.

I would like to know what references are demonstrated for these 'facts'?

 

[cvanwey]

The Catholic Church composed the bible!

It happened at the Council of Carthage and was subsequently approved by Pope Innocent I.

...That is how Christianity recieved the New Testament whether anyone likes it or not. Sorry, but facts are facts.

Again, how does any of this explanation answer my initial question? How does one know what to accept, and what to reject from the OT/NT?

You are appealing to humans. I would assume 'Pope Innocent I' was a human. I'm also assuming the Council of Carthage derived from none other than humans. Since all humans are fallible, I then pose the exact same question...How does one know what to accept, and what to reject from the OT/NT?

 

[dmmesdale]

Wow, that could not have been more deliberate, with the 'shifting' for the burden of proof. By default, nothing happens.

There exists little to no evidence, outside claims from the Bible itself, that Jews were enslaved in this region, and in this claimed time period.

I would like to know what references are demonstrated for these 'facts'?

You don't believe the Exodus happend and at the same time treat slave regulation as real, is that it? Well if the Exodus is fiction as you believe then why do you believe slave regulation is real? Since all the regulation is depicted in the Torah? Double standards anyone?

You have not one fact to back your assertions the Exodus did not happen. All is offered is opinion and opinion is not evidence. You need to prove all the ancients wrong. So have at it.

 

[Kemet]

Of course. Many times.
Not needed. You have plenty of writted accounts over a period of time which attests to the Exodus as history. This is what you wrote.
If that is true then God would not have freed the Israelites. Your assessment also ignores slavery was universal in antiquity and far more brutal in other countries at that time. That is why the Hittite code was included and ignored which is typical of hyper critics. It was sex on demand for slave girls both from fathers and sons.
Yup now give me five examples of slave liberation from the Old Testament. Have you actually read the bible?
On what natural basis is it wrong for big-brained apes to own other big-brained apes? It is your camp which reduces humans to the level of animals. Not ours.
It does and don't try to sleaze out of it. Have you done an extensive study on them? From credible sources? What is your source of information? Evilbible? Or some other bible despiser non academic site?
You left out the Hittite law code why? Cherry picking? Don't want to do the compare analysis? It is a valid question and would like a rational answer absent appeals to outrage, please?
No.

If you want to debate the issues you raise, that is for another topic. Maybe you should start a new topic--especially on your documentation that an Exodus occurred during any of the 31 plus Kemetic dynasties.

The forum question is "Is Slavery Moral"--either one can answer the question with a definitive statement that slavery and the slavery passages in the Bible and Tanakh of Judaism are immoral--or one can eschew a direct response and engage in religious reaction formation.

What camp? Not mine! You are the one who posted this:

"Immoral relative to what? Why should your opinion carry any weight in a world of natural where humans are big-brained apes and nothing more?"

Then you posted this:

"On what natural basis is it wrong for big-brained apes to own other big-brained apes? It is your camp which reduces humans to the level of animals. Not ours."

 

[cvanwey]

You don't believe the Exodus happened and at the same time treat slave regulation as real, is that it? Well if the Exodus is fiction as you believe then why do you believe slave regulation is real? Since all the regulation is depicted in the Torah? Double standards anyone?

Wow.... Just... Wow...

I 'believe' humans wrote stuff, yes. My claim is nothing was inspired from 'above.' Hence, the OP 'Is slavery moral?"

Until anyone can demonstrate that the Bible was actually inspired by anything other than humans, you are appealing to ancient subjective opinions.

And yes, slavery did/does exist. My take, is that people wrote verses in the Bible to 'justify' the continuance/allowance of slavery. Not any claimed God.

You are presented a severe non sequitur... (Between presented 'slavery regulation' and 'Exodus.') There is a severe difference between providing instruction on how to own other people. Verses, a story of 2 million Jews leaving Egypt (with no archaeological evidence to support as such).

You have not one fact to back your assertions the Exodus did not happen. All is offered is opinion and opinion is not evidence. You need to prove all the ancients wrong. So have at it.

Please look up the 'burden of prove' fallacy...

And again, I asked for your best evidence supporting the Exodus. You have replied twice now, with nothing other than a blank assertion. So please provide some.

Thnx

 

[dmmesdale]

Wow.... Just... Wow...

I 'believe' humans wrote stuff, yes. My claim is nothing was inspired from 'above.' Hence, the OP 'Is slavery moral?"

Until anyone can demonstrate that the Bible was actually inspired by anything other than humans, you are appealing to ancient subjective opinions.

And yes, slavery did/does exist. My take, is that people wrote verses in the Bible to 'justify' the continuance/allowance of slavery. Not any claimed God.

You are presented a severe non sequitur... (Between presented 'slavery regulation' and 'Exodus.') There is a severe difference between providing instruction on how to own other people. Verses, a story of 2 million Jews leaving Egypt (with no archaeological evidence to support as such).



Please look up the 'burden of prove' fallacy...

And again, I asked for your best evidence supporting the Exodus. You have replied twice now, with nothing other than a blank assertion. So please provide some.

Thnx

If you believe the Exodus fiction then provide the facts which supports your beliefs.
If you believe the Exodus is fiction then why are you quoting slave regualtion verses as real in what you believe is a work of fiction? How many works of fiction do you know which also contains 600 and some laws regulating everything? It is your belief and you have not provided one fact in support of your assertion. All you have done is dodge. We have the facts and you have the opinion.

 

[Moral Orel]

No. Premeditated Murder, for example is objective. The reason it is objective is because it is From the finger of God. It is an objective standard applies to all persons equally. Also Exod.23:2. Shall not follow the masses in doing evil..... Consensus does not determine right from wrong for humans, only God does.

If it is from men via consensus then it is not objective.

Okay, so the 10 Commandments are objective morals. But in the context of this thread, "Don't own slaves" is not an objective moral? Is it a moral at all if it isn't objective?

 

[Moral Orel]

This passage comes from Matthew 5. The context of the law that Jesus is referring is not clear in this section as there is oral Torah, and there are parts of Leviticus that do not appear to be from Moses. Additionally there are various sections of the written Torah like ceremonial commandments, national commandments (such as in Op), and Commandments from the Lord like the 10 commandments.

So which was Christ most likely referring to? Well I think we can draw that context from the verses following. Directly after mentioning that not one iota will pass from the "commandments" Jesus immediately begins partially discussing the 10 commandments.

V21 thou shalt not murder
V27 thou shalt not commit adultery
V33 very similar to thou shalt not bear false witness.
V38 Jesus directly reverses the national law of Israel of which category the OP resides.

So I think we have better context that Christ is not referring to the national laws of Israel but of the commandments given by God. We have no duty to the national laws of Israel, and neither does modern Israel. These national laws were progressive against the backdrop of the cultural code of the ANE and in many cases contextually relevant to the ANE like the ceremonial law of not mixing clothing fibers. (Mixture was a symbol of divinity reserved for the priesthood)

Christians do confirm objective moral values and duties. I think the other poster was asking "relative to what" if you reject God's existence.

I bolded one word where I quoted you. Why did you put "commandments" in quotes like that? Every translation I checked uses the word "Law".

As to the rest of what you said, that would work if He only talked about The Big Ten, but He also talked about divorce, and hate, and "eye for an eye", so He's clearly talking about the whole Law, and not just part of it.

Incidentally, He went through the trouble to all but outlaw divorce, but didn't mention slavery.

 

[Sanoy]

I bolded one word where I quoted you. Why did you put "commandments" in quotes like that? Every translation I checked uses the word "Law".

As to the rest of what you said, that would work if He only talked about The Big Ten, but He also talked about divorce, and hate, and "eye for an eye", so He's clearly talking about the whole Law, and not just part of it.

Incidentally, He went through the trouble to all but outlaw divorce, but didn't mention slavery.

Because of verse 19 "Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." It seems to give further context to what Jesus was referring to by calling what will not be changed "commandments".

God made many other commands besides that of the 10 commandments and I am referring to a contextual category of which the 10 commandments are one, not specifically the 10 commandments. Though He very well could have gone through all ten - we only have what was recorded. Or He could have only gone over the one's He thought needed expounding to fulfill the point in verse 20, which seems to be the case here as he opens with the command, and then clarifies against the national law. What is relevant is what is contextual, and the national law is clearly not in the context of Jesus's reference. This is made clear by the fact that He stated He is not going to change the law, and then proceeds to change the national law given by Moses. That only works if He is referring to a category that excludes national law.

The Torah is a long book. Why should we have the expectation for Jesus to go through every law on that day on the mountain when that was not even the purpose of the segment in reference? Should we conclude that Jesus condoned slavery because He did not mention it here? I don't think that follows at all. Especially where the word is used anachronistically. Israel was the camelot of the ANE.

 

[Allandavid]

There is plenty of evidence fo the claim. What you do not have is any actual evidence the Exodus did not happen. Critics are entitled to their opinions, not their facts. Opinions are not evidence.

Wrong...on two counts.

You can’t prove a negative.

There is no evidence for the ‘exodus’....

 

[Moral Orel]

Because of verse 19 "Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." It seems to give further context to what Jesus was referring to by calling what will not be changed "commandments".

All of the laws in the OT Law are commandments. Some things just weren't important enough to make the Big Ten, or make the list at all.

God made many other commands besides that of the 10 commandments and I am referring to a contextual category of which the 10 commandments are one, not specifically the 10 commandments. Though He very well could have gone through all ten - we only have what was recorded. Or He could have only gone over the one's He thought needed expounding to fulfill the point in verse 20, which seems to be the case here as he opens with the command, and then clarifies against the national law. What is relevant is what is contextual, and the national law is clearly not in the context of Jesus's reference. This is made clear by the fact that He stated He is not going to change the law, and then proceeds to change the national law given by Moses. That only works if He is referring to a category that excludes national law.

The point He was getting at was that following the Law isn't enough, and you have to do even better. He referenced "national law" and the Big Ten when He did so. He expanded laws by saying, "The law says don't do this, but I say don't do this as well". Nothing was taken away, just added to.

The Torah is a long book. Why should we have the expectation for Jesus to go through every law on that day on the mountain when that was not even the purpose of the segment in reference? Should we conclude that Jesus condoned slavery because He did not mention it here? I don't think that follows at all. Especially where the word is used anachronistically. Israel was the camelot of the ANE.

I just mentioned that if we was expanding laws and making them stricter, that would have been a good place. Jesus condoned slavery because He didn't say there was anything wrong with it anywhere in the Bible. He utilizes it in a parable where He talks about slaves deserving beatings, but that's it as far as I am aware.

The word is not used anachronistically either. Please don't tell me you're one of those folks who thinks it was only indentured servitude, because that's demonstrably wrong.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

I don't recall slavery being considered good in the bible. And seem more man made. A lot of things didn't seem good in the bible. I don't believe God thought everything in the bible was okay . God seem to let people do their thing. And mainly stayed out of the way.

 

[Sanoy]

All of the laws in the OT Law are commandments. Some things just weren't important enough to make the Big Ten, or make the list at all.

The point He was getting at was that following the Law isn't enough, and you have to do even better. He referenced "national law" and the Big Ten when He did so. He expanded laws by saying, "The law says don't do this, but I say don't do this as well". Nothing was taken away, just added to.

I just mentioned that if we was expanding laws and making them stricter, that would have been a good place. Jesus condoned slavery because He didn't say there was anything wrong with it anywhere in the Bible. He utilizes it in a parable where He talks about slaves deserving beatings, but that's it as far as I am aware.

The word is not used anachronistically either. Please don't tell me you're one of those folks who thinks it was only indentured servitude, because that's demonstrably wrong.

Jesus summed up two laws, love your neighbor and God. I think He is getting at these underlying moral laws, but He is by no means confirming the national law. He quite literally overturns it and commands the polar opposite, so the proposition He is saying the national law cannot be changed, or is confirmed is manifestly untrue.

Slavery here is absolutely anachronistic as it does not carry the same understanding. Israels issuance is based both on allievation of poverty, and the inclusion of foriegn peoples in a land where only ethnic Israelites can own land. One cannot equate a modern, well exemplified term, with a three thousand year old word with unique ANE context, and sentences worth of description.

 

[Phil 1:21]

It's always interesting watching people who believe there is no God argue objective morality.

 

[cvanwey]

If you believe the Exodus fiction then provide the facts which supports your beliefs.

Again, you are either misreading my prior responses, or are ignoring them. How might one provide evidence of absence? Also, you are shifting the burden of proof. But I'll guess I'll try anyways...

Aside from the Biblical story (which is the claim itself), there exists no evidence supporting a story of 2 million Jews residing in Egypt at this period in time.

From Wikipedia - (if you do not find the below statement credible, please provide your authoritative source outside the Bible itself, as I also acknowledge that sometimes people to not accept Wikipedia):

"The consensus of modern scholars is that the Bible does not give an accurate account of the origins of Israel.[34] There is no indication that the Israelites ever lived in Ancient Egypt, and the Sinai Peninsula shows almost no sign of any occupation for the entire 2nd millennium BCE (even Kadesh-Barnea, where the Israelites are said to have spent 38 years, was uninhabited prior to the establishment of the Israelite monarchy).[35] In contrast to the absence of evidence for the Egyptian captivity and wilderness wanderings, there are ample signs of Israel's evolution within Canaan from native Canaanite roots.[9] While a few scholars discuss the historicity, or at least plausibility, of the exodus story, the majority of archaeologists have abandoned it, in the phrase used by archaeologist William Dever, as "a fruitless pursuit"

If you believe the Exodus is fiction then why are you quoting slave regualtion verses as real in what you believe is a work of fiction?

Again, you are either not reading my responses, or not understanding my responses. So I will make yet another attempt, for your clarification.

The Bible was written by humans. The Exodus was written from oral tradition and legendary tales; by humans. Any/all laws written within the Bible, were written by humans. It does not matter if there was one law, or 10K laws written. They are all written by humans, with no divine inspiration. Just like the burden of proof lies with Qur'an believers to support any story in which you think is false. It is not up to [you] to 'disprove' stories from the Qur'an, it is the believer's responsibility to provide evidence outside the claim (being the Qur'an). Why? Because the verses from the Qur'an ARE the claim. You cannot use verses from the claim to prove the claim. Outside the Exodus account from the Bible, no evidence exists to support such a population in Egypt. To ask to provide evidence demonstrating this story false, would be no different then asking me to demonstrate that 2 million Jews did not live in a specific city of China 3K years ago. If the evidence is lacking, or non-existent, then there is nothing to 'disprove'.

How many works of fiction do you know which also contains 600 and some laws regulating everything? It is your belief and you have not provided one fact in support of your assertion.

Please read the response above.

All you have done is dodge. We have the facts and you have the opinion.

I trust and hope that you some day either understand the responses above, or at least acknowledge that your return responses do not apply to my prior responses.

Thanks