Slavery IS Regulated in the Bible!

[PhantomGaze]

God could have done so very many things; and, if He is really God as Christians believe in Him (all-powerful, and the author of morality) then He would have done, just as He did when confronted with other things that He disapproves of. But He didn't.
I can just hear the response now: "Who are you to judge God?" But that's not what I'm doing. All I'm doing is letting the text speak for itself, and pointing out that any other readings of it simply do not make sense.

To me this seems akin to a child's lack of understanding why parents don't just buy mountains of candy and yacts, or insist on broccoli at dinner rather than ice cream. I can imagine such a simple, and ungrateful child. "If they really loved me, they would give me ice cream for dinner." Yet there is so much about the world they don't understand.

 

[PhantomGaze]

I couldn't disagree more. If you were to ask someone "why do the tides come in?" and they said "it's like the rise and fall of your chest when you breathe, so the Earth is breathing." That's simple. Then you asked someone else, and they gave a long complicated explanation about how the moon's gravity causes the tides, you might be more inclined to believe the earth is breathing if you're a simple person, because it's more simple, and it fits your experience, so it seems to make sense. The world is a complex place, many simple answers only serve to obscure very complicated truths, we know nature is complicated. Biology is complicated. Physics is complicated. Philosophy is complicated. Insisting on a shallow understanding of life doesn't create any illumination.

As an interesting aside, Galileo himself actually argued that the moon causing the ocean's tide was "occult nonsense", because he believed the tides were caused by the rotation of the Earth.

 

[Halbhh]

It’s an interesting thing in apologetics, and one that is on display in this thread: the arguments on the Christian side are usually very complicated, but the arguments on the nonreligious side are quite simple.
The reason for this is that the arguments from the nonreligious side make sense. The arguments from the Christian side do not, and that’s why they require such a lot of additional explanations to be tacked on to them. The Christians on this particular thread don't seem to be aware of this; they seem to think that what they are doing is taking the trouble to explain a difficult issue in detail. But it’s only a tricky theological problem if you’re a Christian, and their explanations only postpone the problem (this is a useful feature for apologists, however; as the arguments get longer and more complicated, it’s easier for them to hide the contradictions in them).

So: the problem is, if God is a good God, why does He endorse slavery?
On the one side, then, we have the atheist answer. God doesn't exist. The Christian God is just a character in a set of stories from the Bible. The pro-slavery parts of the Bible were written by men who thought that slavery was fine, and they enlisted God to back up their arguments.
As is so often the case, the tricky questions about “Why would God do that?” are easy to answer if you're not a Christian.

If, however, you are a Christian, then you have some explaining to do.
Let’s take a look at some of these explanations that Christians must use to try to resolve this issue.

1. “The Bible doesn't endorse slavery.” I include this for the sake of completeness. Some Christians do say it, but I think at this point in the thread we’ve established that it does.

2. “Slavery as described in the Bible was not all that bad.” Some Christians argue that there were mitigating circumstances. Masters weren’t allowed to actually kill their slaves, for example, or that some slaves entered into servitude of their own free will. This argument can't, of course, be taken seriously. The verses are quite clear. Masters could capture people, keep them against their will, keep their children against their will, and punish them with horrific cruelty if they wished.

3. “This was a form of “progressive revelation” is the other rationalization on display in this thread. Apparently God knew all along that slavery was bad, but He held His hand, allowed it to continue while introducing laws to control its worst excesses, and introducing special messengers such as Jesus to eventually lead to the abolition of slavery through better teachings.
This idea is wrong on many levels.
First of all, if it was God’s intention to end slavery, then He could have just done it. He’s God. The stories in the Bible are quite clear. He can do anything. He flooded the world, he cursed the Egyptians until they freed the Israelites, and if He wanted to stop people from holding slaves, He could have.

Secondly, even if there was some reason that God was unable to free the slaves, why didn’t He at least announce this plan of His? Say “Owning slaves is bad. I understand you don’t realise that yet, but it’s better to not have slavery, and one day you will abolish it, in accordance with My will.” The answer, of course, is that God approves of slavery (the Christian answer, that is, the only one they can honestly give. The atheist answer is that there is no God).

God could have laid down different laws in the Old Testament. Instead of saying “You can punish your slaves as much as they like, as long as it doesn’t actually kill them” how about “You can deprive your slaves of food and water for a certain period, as long as it doesn’t kill them” or “You can assign them extra work to do” or “You can have a system of different tasks, and give disobedient slaves the worst of them” or “You can have rebellious slaves trialled as criminals and sentenced to prison”. Or God could have just written in the Bible “It’s wrong to own people, wrong to make them work against their will, and wrong to punish your slaves”.

God could have done so very many things; and, if He is really God as Christians believe in Him (all-powerful, and the author of morality) then He would have done, just as He did when confronted with other things that He disapproves of. But He didn't.
I can just hear the response now: "Who are you to judge God?" But that's not what I'm doing. All I'm doing is letting the text speak for itself, and pointing out that any other readings of it simply do not make sense.
I understand that this is a problem for Christians who don't want to believe that the Bible is pro-slavery, but you do have a number of options. You could ignore it. You could attempt to rationalise it further (there really is no argument so absurd that an apologist will not use it); or, you could entertain the idea that maybe these conflicts within the Christian religion will make sense if you realise that God is imaginary.

The trouble with putting a pet theory above reality is it tends to prevent seeing what is in front of you.

You want to aim to do the more difficult thing -- instead test your theory against more information. Not just trying to find information that supports it, but instead the scientific method --

To try to find information that could disprove it.

Yourself. For you yourself to look for information to disprove it. I could offer as I already did to you above just yesterday information, but only you can do the work of considering what might not fit a theory you'd have preferred.

Without testing your theory to find if some facts/reality disprove it, you merely would continue with a faulty idea others have already seen through and moved on from.

 

[Tinker Grey]

The trouble with putting a pet theory above reality is it tends to prevent seeing what is in front of you.

From your mouth to your ears.

 

[Halbhh]

From your mouth to your ears.

Amen for that one.

Every day I seek out new information that helps me sift and challenge old theories, to seek out better understanding.

So that sometimes old theories may go into the trash can, no matter if they are 2 days old or 2 years, or 20.

What about you? Do you seek to find what might challenge your own favorite old theories and viewpoints?

Most people do the opposite -- seeking to filter reality and ignore what might contradict old ideas.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I couldn't disagree more. If you were to ask someone "why do the tides come in?" and they said "it's like the rise and fall of your chest when you breathe, so the Earth is breathing." That's simple. Then you asked someone else, and they gave a long complicated explanation about how the moon's gravity causes the tides, you might be more inclined to believe the earth is breathing if you're a simple person, because it's more simple, and it fits your experience, so it seems to make sense. The world is a complex place, many simple answers only serve to obscure very complicated truths, we know nature is complicated. Biology is complicated. Physics is complicated. Philosophy is complicated. Insisting on a shallow understanding of life doesn't create any illumination.

But this isn't philosophy. It's simple observation. Why the people who wrote the Bible approved of slavery - or, if you prefer, why God does - is no doubt an interesting question, a complex question, and one that I would welcome advice and input on. But the fact that the writers of the Bible, whoever they were, obviously did approve of slavery is simply not in doubt, and piling on rationalisations, extra theories and dubious interpretations is simply unwarranted.

To me this seems akin to a child's lack of understanding why parents don't just buy mountains of candy and yacts, or insist on broccoli at dinner rather than ice cream. I can imagine such a simple, and ungrateful child. "If they really loved me, they would give me ice cream for dinner." Yet there is so much about the world they don't understand.

Sorry, what is it you think seems akin to parents insisting on their children eating broccoli rather than ice cream? A book of moral instructions which tells people they should buy other humans, force them to serve them, and punish them brutally on a whim?
In this case, there is a simple explanation which even a child would understand: ice cream is bad for you. There is no such explanation for condoning and indeed encouraging slavery.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

...

 

[Tinker Grey]

Amen for that one.

Every day I seek out new information that helps me sift and challenge old theories, to seek out better understanding.

So that sometimes old theories may go into the trash can, no matter if they are 2 days old or 2 years, or 20.

What about you? Do you seek to find what might challenge your own favorite old theories and viewpoints?

Most people do the opposite -- seeking to filter reality and ignore what might contradict old ideas.

Well I used to be a Christian, so ... yeah, I've challenged my cherished beliefs.

 

[Halbhh]

Well I used to be a Christian, so ... yeah, I've challenged my cherished beliefs.

That's a good step actually, often. (for too many in too many individual churches)

Because of that individual church -- when it's not doing what Christ said to do.

As Francis said a year or 3 back, it's better to be an atheist than a hypocritical 'Christian'.

Pope Francis suggests it’s better to be an atheist than a hypocritical Christian -- Chicago Tribune

 

[PhantomGaze]

But this isn't philosophy. It's simple observation. Why the people who wrote the Bible approved of slavery - or, if you prefer, why God does - is no doubt an interesting question, a complex question, and one that I would welcome advice and input on. But the fact that the writers of the Bible, whoever they were, obviously did approve of slavery is simply not in doubt, and piling on rationalisations, extra theories and dubious interpretations is simply unwarranted.

Yes often times simple observations have complex explanations. What's so unique about that?

Sorry, what is it you think seems akin to parents insisting on their children eating broccoli rather than ice cream? A book of moral instructions which tells people they should buy other humans, force them to serve them, and punish them brutally on a whim?
In this case, there is a simple explanation which even a child would understand: ice cream is bad for you. There is no such explanation for condoning and indeed encouraging slavery.

So once again you're arguing that explanations are only correct if they're simple? I thought we just went through this.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

The trouble with putting a pet theory above reality is it tends to prevent seeing what is in front of you.

You want to aim to do the more difficult thing -- instead test your theory against more information. Not just trying to find information that supports it, but instead the scientific method --

To try to find information that could disprove it.

Yourself. For you yourself to look for information to disprove it. I could offer as I already did to you above just yesterday information, but only you can do the work of considering what might not fit a theory you'd have preferred.

Without testing your theory to find if some facts/reality disprove it, you merely would continue with a faulty idea others have already seen through and moved on from.

But that's exactly what I do. I come on here, announce my theories, test them against the best that Christians can offer - and find, not to my great surprise, that Christians arguments tend to fail. As we've seen in this thread.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Yes often times simple observations have complex explanations. What's so unique about that?

Nothing. The question of whether or not the Bible approves of slavery is a very simple one. Obviously, it does, as has been shown in this thread. What's your problem with that?

So once again you're arguing that explanations are only correct if they're simple? I thought we just went through this.

where did I say that? You've misunderstood me. Of course an explanation may be simple or complex, depending on the thing it consistently s explaining. But it does seem to be a general pattern that atheists pointing out mistakes or contradictions in the Bible make simple arguments that are easily proven, whereas Christians, in trying to defend them, are forced to make complex arguments to account for all of the extra difficulties their arguments cause for their own side - and which still , eventually , fail.
It's also interesting to see that you seem unable to respond to my argument above. Have we all agreed, then, that God does approve of slavery?

 

[gaara4158]

Let's be clear here---there is a difference between something being "unacceptable" and something being "unpreferable," and anyone can read the entire Old Testament and see that slavery is placed into the category of "non-preferred social state" by the writers. Moreover, there is a philosophy of "rights" that God establishes that will determine three things, three things that we ignore today because we think we're so darn Enlightened. One is that God is Lord of the Land; Two, our right to the land is conditioned on our obedience to God; Three, our right to freedom is also conditioned on our obedience to God. When we flout these principles, we lose the land and our freedoms since they're contingent, not un-contingent.

I should hope that the writers were not so naive as to suppose the slaves actually enjoyed their social status (as some of the apologists for American slavery were), but what we're looking for is outright condemnation of the institution itself. I don't think we'll find that. If you're suggesting that God sometimes uses extant evils of the world to punish his disobedient followers, and that could be a reason God doesn't order the immediate abolition of slavery upon first mention, then it appears God may sometimes find inhumane treatment acceptable. I think punishment has its place, but I don't now if I'm so edgy as to say Biblical slavery - especially of the sort Jews practiced when owning heathens - is an acceptable form of it.

I don't in any way shrug it off. So, we can dispense with the idea that some Christians (such as myself) have Willy-Nilly just rushed into accept the biblical political paradigm because we're just so gung-ho to push the bible for our political agendas. There's no shrugging off. If anything, there is a resistance on the part of Skeptics, Atheist, Apostates, and other non-Christians, to engage not only the Bible but the several philosophical political forms of Christian thought that attempt to fill in the gaps that you mentioned remain since "we don't have the full details." As for myself, if you want to get into a deeper discussion here, then please lead the way with your first allegation, OR your first pragmatic principle that you feel is robust enough to stand up to scrutiny so that it can also then serve as a springboard by which to criticize the Bible's apparent 'ethics' (or lack thereof).

I don't think you take any of your positions willy-nilly, Philo, and that's why I enjoy discussing these things with you. I didn't mean to suggest either of us was taking one of the lazy ways out, just pointing out that there are more than a few ways to lazily toss this issue away for either side. I can absolutely lay out why I feel my pragmatic approach to ethics is, if not wholly sufficient and satisfying to some people, still more defensible than the alternatives grounded on religious beliefs that ultimately rely on a battery of philosophical arguments being successful before the moral element can even be discussed.

Well, Ok. Lead the way then, my friend! Let's chat! However, being the Christian Existentialist that I am, I'm of the mind that all of this will just boil down to whose highway we want to choose when we find that human ethics is difficult to substantiate fully in any single direction .....

You're probably right about what this will boil down to, but it'll be a fun exercise nonetheless. To put it briefly, I believe morality/ethics, whatever you want to call it, is derived from what humans as social creatures naturally value in a society, and the aggregate of these values can be summed up as “maximal human flourishing.” Note that this isn’t followed by “by any means necessary.” If it were, we would be vulnerable to utilitarian solutions to social issues based on the exploitation of a minority group for the benefit of the majority (slavery and eugenics come to mind quickly). Instead, we add the caveat that whatever society we construct based around the goal of human flourishing, it should be one in which we would be willing to participate from any social status. This is referred to as the veil of uncertainty, and it runs on the same principle as the old rule of fairness stating that the one who cuts the cake should get the last choice of piece. Every step of the way, we are just setting up a practical system by which to achieve our shared goal.

Divine Command, on the other hand, rests on the existence and moral authority of God, both of which take a lot of work to demonstrate and I don’t think it’s ever been done successfully.

 

[Halbhh]

But that's exactly what I do. I come on here, announce my theories, test them against the best that Christians can offer - and find, not to my great surprise, that Christians arguments tend to fail. As we've seen in this thread.

The end of slavery, shown in the new Testament, as pointed out above, which you must have missed?

It's hard to see what you don't open your eyes to see.

 

[PhantomGaze]

Nothing. The question of whether or not the Bible approves of slavery is a very simple one. Obviously, it does, as has been shown in this thread. What's your problem with that?

where did I say that? You've misunderstood me. Of course an explanation may be simple or complex, depending on the thing it consistently s explaining. But it does seem to be a general pattern that atheists pointing out mistakes or contradictions in the Bible make simple arguments that are easily proven, whereas Christians, in trying to defend them, are forced to make complex arguments to account for all of the extra difficulties their arguments cause for their own side - and which still , eventually , fail.
It's also interesting to see that you seem unable to respond to my argument above. Have we all agreed, then, that God does approve of slavery?

If the truth is complex, a simple view of it will often lead to a misunderstanding. In the case of God or even the Bible approving of slavery, I actually addressed this when I first entered the thread. But to sum it up more succinctly for you:

The pre-christian world approved of slavery.
The Bible didn't directly challenge slavery.
The logical extension of Christian thought has led us in the modern world to reject it.
The larger narrative of the Bible has led us to reject it.

So no. God does not approve of slavery. I think that's pretty clear.

Further, if we indict Christianity on its own conclusions, we lose the basis upon which those conclusions are made.

I hope that's concise enough.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I should hope that the writers were not so naive as to suppose the slaves actually enjoyed their social status (as some of the apologists for American slavery were), but what we're looking for is outright condemnation of the institution itself. I don't think we'll find that. If you're suggesting that God sometimes uses extant evils of the world to punish his disobedient followers, and that could be a reason God doesn't order the immediate abolition of slavery upon first mention, then it appears God may sometimes find inhumane treatment acceptable. I think punishment has its place, but I don't now if I'm so edgy as to say Biblical slavery - especially of the sort Jews practiced when owning heathens - is an acceptable form of it.

...well, I guess we'll never get to all those other discussions we could have about whether God driven judgments [whatever the form] are justified. We'll have to save those for some other rain-day.

I don't think you take any of your positions willy-nilly, Philo, and that's why I enjoy discussing these things with you. I didn't mean to suggest either of us was taking one of the lazy ways out, just pointing out that there are more than a few ways to lazily toss this issue away for either side. I can absolutely lay out why I feel my pragmatic approach to ethics is, if not wholly sufficient and satisfying to some people, still more defensible than the alternatives grounded on religious beliefs that ultimately rely on a battery of philosophical arguments being successful before the moral element can even be discussed.

ok. But as you do, make sure to keep it tied in support of the locus of the OP.

You're probably right about what this will boil down to, but it'll be a fun exercise nonetheless. To put it briefly, I believe morality/ethics, whatever you want to call it, is derived from what humans as social creatures naturally value in a society, and the aggregate of these values can be summed up as “maximal human flourishing.”

I've heard that term somewhere before ...

Note that this isn’t followed by “by any means necessary.” If it were, we would be vulnerable to utilitarian solutions to social issues based on the exploitation of a minority group for the benefit of the majority (slavery and eugenics come to mind quickly). Instead, we add the caveat that whatever society we construct based around the goal of human flourishing, it should be one in which we would be willing to participate from any social status. This is referred to as the veil of uncertainty, and it runs on the same principle as the old rule of fairness stating that the one who cuts the cake should get the last choice of piece. Every step of the way, we are just setting up a practical system by which to achieve our shared goal.

And from where did you get this idea about the "veil of uncertainty"? It almost sounds like it was lifted from Joh................. Oops! I'll have to let you tell me your source.

Divine Command, on the other hand, rests on the existence and moral authority of God, both of which take a lot of work to demonstrate and I don’t think it’s ever been done successfully.

I guess it's a good thing I don't go in for old fashioned Divine Command ethics, isn't it?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

The end of slavery, shown in the new Testament, as pointed out above, which you must have missed?

It's hard to see what you don't open your eyes to see.

Perhaps you were unaware that slavery flourished in both the Old and New Testament times, and that the New Testament supported it?
http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl2.htm
This short article explains Christian support of slavery clearly.

 

[Halbhh]

Perhaps you were unaware that slavery flourished in both the Old and New Testament times, and that the New Testament supported it?
http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl2.htm
This short article explains Christian support of slavery clearly.

It's basic knowledge everyone has that slavery was historically around the world, and much more recent in times that slave owners in the U.S. in the 19th century had the kind of see-what-I-want-to-see view of the bible, and even created a highly censored "slaves Bible" in order to help control their slaves.

You could learn a lot of new things in this thread, if you'd not assume you already know all things about the Bible and slavery and what Christians today understand (so as to think it worth while to even read what we are saying).

 

[InterestedAtheist]

It's basic knowledge everyone has that slavery was historically around the world, and much more recent in times that slave owners in the U.S. in the 19th century had the kind of see-what-I-want-to-see view of the bible, and even created a highly censored "slaves Bible" in order to help control their slaves.

You could learn a lot of new things in this thread, if you'd not assume you already know all things about the Bible and slavery and what Christians today understand (so as to think it worth while to even read what we are saying).

You know, if it was true that God really does approve of slavery, that God thinks owning and abusing a human being is a good thing, that would be a terrible problem for Christians, because it shows that God supports evil.
So I really do understand why you don't want to admit it. But the Bible is quite clear. God does support slavery. You are unable to show evidence that He condemns it, and unable to discredit the parts of the Bible that support slavery. That, I'm sure, is unfortunate. But there we are. The question has been answered. If you can't accept that, then say so.

 

[Halbhh]

Perhaps you were unaware that slavery flourished in both the Old and New Testament times, and that the New Testament supported it?
http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl2.htm
This short article explains Christian support of slavery clearly.

Instead of trying to guess (mind reading?) about what we know and don't know, as you said to me to let you know if you make the error of 'mind reading'...

Instead of that, look at posts like:

#61, 63, 65 (link: Slavery IS Regulated in the Bible!)
and
#38 in this thread (link: Slavery IS Regulated in the Bible!)