Slavery IS Regulated in the Bible!

[Halbhh]

If Jesus, Paul, or any of the influential figures of early Christianity had seen slavery for the evil that it was and is, they would undoubtedly have spoken out against it. Now, it does you credit that you realise that slavery is a bad thing, of course; but the fact of the matter is, the Bible clearly shows you that you disagree with God on this.

After the slave owner was converted....see post #185.

 

[Halbhh]

Nope. "God" states you may beat your slaves. Not humans. If God did not 'like' such treatment, God would not allow for it. God would either not clarify what one is to do with slaves at all, or certainly would not specifically divinely justify the actual word 'beat', when making reference to slaves. Your response is absurd, quite honestly.

If God does not like 'enslavement', God would have pronounced as such. The fact God makes 'special concessions' for slavery, means it is allowable, and without sin to boot!

Please reconcile this 'fact', and learn that you are tripping all over yourself with every successive response, in attempted defense of this topic.

I'm not sure when for you, but it may be possible to suddenly one day get the true import of this below --

The sudden changes it set up for the future, inevitable, unavoidable. Years, centuries, days, moments, later.

For one person at a time -- total change. Became possible.

11 If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! 12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

13 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

He said, you can see, that "only a few find it" -- but slowly, over time, a few do find it, even while all around them most will not.

You could be one that does, but I surely don't know.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

If the truth is complex, a simple view of it will often lead to a misunderstanding.

But sometimes the reverse is true. Sometimes the truth is simple, and a complex view will lead to a misunderstanding.
Tell me, if you witnessed two people speaking, and they had a conversation like this, what would you think?
Person A: Is it alright for me to own slaves?
Person B: Yes, it is.
Person A: And is it alright for me to punish the slaves as I see fit?
Person B: Yes - just make sure you don't actually kill them.
Sometimes the simplest explanation is the one you need.

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.

Thank you very much. Your conciseness is appreciated. Let's look at what you said:
The pre-christian world approved of slavery. And the Christian world too; and if slavery was abolished by Christian societies in later years, it was also brought back by Christian societies too.
The Bible didn't directly challenge slavery. Not only did the Bible not just "not challenge" slavery, it also entered into it enthusiastically, giving precise instructions about how to take, keep and abuse slaves.
The logical extension of Christian thought has led us in the modern world to reject it. False. Logically, God approves of slavery, which is why he gave directions about how to regulate it and how to punish slaves. Don't insert your own morality into the Bible. Let it speak for itself.
The larger narrative of the Bible has led us to reject it. False. The Bible is quite clear. God approves of slavery. If he didn't, He wouldn't have said that we could take, keep and punish slaves.

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

What's crystal clear is this:
1. You don't approve of slavery (good for you!)
2. You believe that God must be good.
3. Therefore, you must believe that God does not approve of slavery, no matter the clear evidence that He does.

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

Not sure what you mean by this, honestly.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Um, forgive me, but you should read that text a bit more carefully, trying to see what your eyes didn't yet.

It's in post #185 just above, and probably most people here already read through and saw what I'm pointing at, as it is very clear in the text. I even bolded it for you.

You know, Halbhh, you're right. I should have read that more carefully. Having done so, I see the point you're making. You're saying that Paul wrote, in his letter, that he wished for Onesimus to be freed. Good point!
Having said that, I have two problems with this.
First: I think it is far from certain that Paul actually did request that Onesimus be freed. Nowhere in the letter does it actually request that he be set free from legal slavery. Christians themselves disagree on this point to this day (an example). It may well be that what Paul meant was that Onesimus was now a Christian, and spiritually freed, and that Christians should love one another, without actually manumitting Onesimus.
Second: look at what Paul doesn't say. He doesn't say that all slaves should be freed. He doesn't say that slavery is wrong. Nor, as far as I know, do any people in the New Testament, and certainly not Jesus. Now, you and I know that slavery is a huge moral wrong; but apparently (and completely unsurprisingly) nobody in the Old or New Testament did, including both God and Jesus.
Third: none of this affects what we've already established: God is on record as approving of and endorsing slavery.
As I said before, it really is as simple as that. This creates a huge problem for Christians who believe that God is morally good, but that's their problem.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

11 If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! 12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

13 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

He said, you can see, that "only a few find it" -- but slowly, over time, a few do find it, even while all around them most will not.

You could be one that does, but I surely don't know.

If few go to Heaven then, logically, most go to Hell. Thank you, God.

 

[gaara4158]

Thank you for laying out your influences. This helps me to envision some of the ways in which you conceptualize the overall moral scheme presently active in your mind. I'm not familiar with John Harsyani, but with the others you've listed, I am.

...well, forgive me, but I think that if those who framed the United Declaration of Human Rights had difficulty in establishing and grounding their ethical notions, you will too. (We all do, in fact, but that's neither here nor there at the moment ...)

So, at the moment, here's a list of principles that seem inherent to your position:

1) Some ethereal "sense" of human flourishing (whatever that is exactly).
2) Some ethereal "sense" of democratic justice as supposedly rational and axiomatic.

Feel free to edit and add to this list. I'm just putting this out there for the sake of discussion.

If these are correct, and since we're not just talking about ethics in general, but in assessing the concept of slavery we find in the Bible, then you'll need to explain how the Bible doesn't measure up while at the same time explaining how your 'influences' trump. What may happen is that I'll have to take each of your influences one at a time and sift through their individual articulations.

Thanks for giving me the chance to clarify.

As for 1, human flourishing refers to the general existential needs of humans being met. This includes basics like food, shelter, and safety, but also includes psychological needs like community, love, and personal fulfillment. Maslow’s Heirarchy of Needs lists these out neatly, but the heirarcical structure isn’t necessary for this argument. Total human flourishing is the state of all humans having all of their needs met perfectly. This isn’t currently possible due to a limitation of resources and conflicting interests, so I use the term “maximal” human flourishing to describe the state wherein everyone is flourishing to the highest extent possible without taking away from the flourishing of others (the extent to which this is achievable is determined by the veil of ignorance). There is an element of unknowability to this since it’s not possible to quantify exactly how well someone’s psychological needs are being met, especially with so many apples-to-oranges comparisons between people in unlike situations, but there are certain metrics that generally indicate flourishing like life expectancy, mental acuity, and financial stability.

As for 2, I wouldn’t call this sense of democratic justice necessarily rational, since if we were perfectly rational beings we might not even care to go on existing. Instead, we find that nearly all of us want something that may or may not be rational to want, but there are rational ways to go about achieving that end without encroaching on the desires of those who don’t want it. To me, morality is the measure of how well a social group is achieving that end.

Applying this to the treatment of slavery in the Bible, I think it’s clear that it’s unjust. No one would choose to live in a society in which they might end up as someone who gets whipped and beaten while living a life of hard labor, and very little consideration is given to the desires and needs of the slaves by society at large. Based on the ethical system I’ve outlined it’s very easy to point out where the Biblical system falls short, and God in his infinite wisdom should have been able to as well, and yet he doesn’t. I’m very curious as to why that is, hence my involvement in this thread.

 

[Halbhh]

You know, Halbhh, you're right. I should have read that more carefully. Having done so, I see the point you're making. You're saying that Paul wrote, in his letter, that he wished for Onesimus to be freed. Good point!
Having said that, I have two problems with this.
First: I think it is far from certain that Paul actually did request that Onesimus be freed. Nowhere in the letter does it actually request that he be set free from legal slavery. Christians themselves disagree on this point to this day (an example). It may well be that what Paul meant was that Onesimus was now a Christian, and spiritually freed, and that Christians should love one another, without actually manumitting Onesimus.
Second: look at what Paul doesn't say. He doesn't say that all slaves should be freed. He doesn't say that slavery is wrong. Nor, as far as I know, do any people in the New Testament, and certainly not Jesus. Now, you and I know that slavery is a huge moral wrong; but apparently (and completely unsurprisingly) nobody in the Old or New Testament did, including both God and Jesus.
Third: none of this affects what we've already established: God is on record as approving of and endorsing slavery.
As I said before, it really is as simple as that. This creates a huge problem for Christians who believe that God is morally good, but that's their problem.

Onesimus - Wikipedia

Christians that truly believe in what Christ said worked to end slavery, but it's not easy to end something so deeply ingrained into human preferences -- every form of how people take advantage of others.

For example, a profitable business paying less than normal wages in order to increase profits even higher, because they can find some workers that have little self esteem and are willing to be victims. As today, in the U.S., too often, but also around the world in so many countries.

 

[Halbhh]

If few go to Heaven then, logically, most go to Hell. Thank you, God.

It does indeed seem to mean at least a majority, though I'm aware I'm not able to assess other's hearts, which would require a form of omniscience. But we learn even what we may have presumed about what groups will be saved are usually too simplified --

For instance, many object to the Flood killing presumably many younger and still innocent people, and not only the guilty majority (totality of adults?) already engaged in "...every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. .... and the Earth was full of violence" -- e.g. rapes, murders, raids, assaults, genocides, etc., as their normal ongoing activities, their way of life.

We learn in the Bible we learn that after this temporary life is a "Day of Judgement" where the innocent and the forgiven will be separated away from the unrepentant guilty. But can we gauge when it's too late? Not so easily!

In straightforward form, unrepentant means no regrets for the evils they did, no admitting it was wrong to God.

While during this temporary life the rule is:
1 Peter 3:11 He must turn from evil and do good; he must seek peace and pursue it.

But... we learn (though not everyone is aware) that God gave them a 2nd chance even after their deaths in the Flood (and by extension it's thought also others not having yet heard the gospel):

18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit. 19 After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits— 20 to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. ..." (1rst Peter chapter 3)

Though unrepentant in their evils they did during life, they nevertheless we learn got a 2nd chance to turn and repent. Because they had not gotten the chance of the saving work of Christ, and now they have gotten that chance.

So, you can begin to see how then:

6 God “will repay each person according to what they have done.” 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9 There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10 but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11 For God does not show favoritism.

12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares."
Romans 2 NIV

So, basically, no matter what you have heard in oversimplifications, we are not able to say who will be saved, and who will not (though many try to oversimplify), except only the most basic parts, they they must repent of their wrongs, and that God is merciful to those that repent....

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Thanks for giving me the chance to clarify.

As for 1, human flourishing refers to the general existential needs of humans being met. This includes basics like food, shelter, and safety, but also includes psychological needs like community, love, and personal fulfillment. Maslow’s Heirarchy of Needs lists these out neatly, but the heirarcical structure isn’t necessary for this argument. Total human flourishing is the state of all humans having all of their needs met perfectly. This isn’t currently possible due to a limitation of resources and conflicting interests, so I use the term “maximal” human flourishing to describe the state wherein everyone is flourishing to the highest extent possible without taking away from the flourishing of others (the extent to which this is achievable is determined by the veil of ignorance). There is an element of unknowability to this since it’s not possible to quantify exactly how well someone’s psychological needs are being met, especially with so many apples-to-oranges comparisons between people in unlike situations, but there are certain metrics that generally indicate flourishing like life expectancy, mental acuity, and financial stability.

Ok, so in you're ethical perspective which subscribes to, as you say, a form of pragmatic consideration, we have an approach (and I don't think we can call it a system) for handling human morality by defining it in terms of

1) Existential Human Needs

&

2) Optimal Conditions for Human Flourishing

However, neither of these terms are objectively or systematically identifiable in an absolute [set] since there is no absolute metric by which to undertake and form an exacting praxis, so in essence, since many people will contribute to a Pluralism of views, and these necessary conditions are, as you've admitted, total human flourishing isn't presently possible.

Do I understand you correctly, or am I missing something?

As for 2, I wouldn’t call this sense of democratic justice necessarily rational, since if we were perfectly rational beings we might not even care to go on existing. Instead, we find that nearly all of us want something that may or may not be rational to want, but there are rational ways to go about achieving that end without encroaching on the desires of those who don’t want it. To me, morality is the measure of how well a social group is achieving that end.

Ok. So, when supplies for necessary 'goods' in the world are short, and there is not enough to go around, what is the 'rational way' to go about achieving an "end" for human flourishing without encroaching upon the desires(?) [ ...or needs?] of those who don't want some [Need X]?

You say that morality is the measure of how well a social group is achieving that end, right? But you said above that there is no metric for all of this. It sounds to me like all you have is a general moral 'heuristic' rather than any definitive ethical system, let alone any solution to the problems that plague mankind. So, far, I'm not seeing how your system will be better than that of Jesus.

How do you propose to encourage conformity to your moral heuristic?

Applying this to the treatment of slavery in the Bible, I think it’s clear that it’s unjust.

Well, I'd agree if I could grasp that you've actually grappled with the issues involved in the supposed institution of slavery as is it expressed in the Bible. (At present, I'm not sure you've begun to grapple with all of the little contextual details that come to bear upon what we're actually "seeing" in the bible when we talk about the concept of servitude. Granted, a lot of the confusion that persists to this day has been caused by people who have claimed to be "Christian"--such as those white slave masters in the Antebellum U.S.---who have mishandled, misconstrued, outright ignored or 'added to' the O.T. Laws and thereby thought they were justified in enslaving and mistreating African-Americans whom they stole from their respective homelands.)

No one would choose to live in a society in which they might end up as someone who gets whipped and beaten while living a life of hard labor, and very little consideration is given to the desires and needs of the slaves by society at large. Based on the ethical system I’ve outlined it’s very easy to point out where the Biblical system falls short, and God in his infinite wisdom should have been able to as well, and yet he doesn’t. I’m very curious as to why that is, hence my involvement in this thread.

You're right. No one today would choose to live in a society in which they might end up as a mistreated servant or slave; but even today people are doing some crazy things because, as you've already admitted, the world (assuming there's no god) doesn't provide for everyone's needs.

So, I'm not convinced you've actually undertaken a fuller exploration of the structure and essence of the O.T. Testament Laws, let alone take into consideration what a full fledged implementation of Jesus' supervenience over the Old Covenant. Of course, as a modern day Christian, this isn't to say insinuating support for replacing our present legal system. I'm not. But I do think a strong shot of Christianity into what seems to be an otherwise deficient Democracy and an overextended subscription to Laissez-faire Capitalism would be helpful, at least as things are in the U.S., other nations having other questionable political structures that need to be considered separately. The point is, 'loving our neighbors' whoever they may be, whether red or yellow, black or white, should be a mandate, not an option. In fact, in both the Old and the New Testaments, we find that there is a general mandate to care for and love one's peaceful, good-hearted neighbor, whoever that may be.

Thoughts?

 

[Halbhh]

Applying this to the treatment of slavery in the Bible, I think it’s clear that it’s unjust. No one would choose to live in a society in which they might end up as someone who gets whipped and beaten while living a life of hard labor,

According to what we learn from Christ (in the Bible) -- all who mistreated slaves and continued to do so without totally repenting of it entire, changing, reversing course -- all such unrepentant people will "perish" and God will "destroy body and soul" in the "second death", before which will be "weeping and gnashing of teeth".

A rather severe and total punishment actually. What more do you want? If you say 'some mercy' -- He has said they will have mercy if they show mercy to others. E.g., if they repent and change, totally.

Do you want to see passages?

So, to suggest that the Bible says beating slaves continued to be ok as the plan to change/progress humanity it shows played out, over time, is only an factually incorrect idea.

And the overall fairness of the justice is more nuanced and unprejudiced than many realize also -- Bible Gateway passage: Romans 2:6-16 - New International Version

But part of the Good News is exactly that a person can repent of wrongs, and if they are truly repenting, God is merciful to them (if it was real repentance so for example, one of many things, that they show mercy to others).

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Onesimus - Wikipedia

Christians that truly believe in what Christ said worked to end slavery, but it's not easy to end something so deeply ingrained into human preferences -- every form of how people take advantage of others.

For example, a profitable business paying less than normal wages in order to increase profits even higher, because they can find some workers that have little self esteem and are willing to be victims. As today, in the U.S., too often, but also around the world in so many countries.

If Christians worked to end slavery, then they clearly worked against the will of God; for it is His will that people should be slaves. We've established this clearly.
God set up the rules by which slaves are to be captured, bought, sold and abused; and neither He, nor Jesus, ever changed the m.
Now, I understand that, as a moral being, you find slavery repugnant. So do I. But, clearly, God does not. And any discussion of how Christians may or may not have worked to end slavery is irrelevant, since the point, as shown in the Bible, is:
God approves of slavery.

 

[gaara4158]

Ok, so in you're ethical perspective which subscribes to, as you say, a form of pragmatic consideration, we have an approach (and I don't think we can call it a system) for handling human morality by defining it in terms of

1) Existential Human Needs

&

2) Optimal Conditions for Human Flourishing

However, neither of these terms are objectively or systematically identifiable in an absolute [set] since there is no absolute metric by which to undertake and form an exacting praxis, so in essence, since many people will contribute to a Pluralism of views, and these necessary conditions are, as you've admitted, total human flourishing isn't presently possible.

Do I understand you correctly, or am I missing something?

You're correct, that is my position.

Ok. So, when supplies for necessary 'goods' in the world are short, and there is not enough to go around, what is the 'rational way' to go about achieving an "end" for human flourishing without encroaching upon the desires(?) [ ...or needs?] of those who don't want some [Need X]?

So who gets a place in the life boats on a sinking ship, basically? This will almost always be decided pragmatically based on each individual's value to the society. Value to society is somewhat subjective I suppose, but there are rational arguments to be made over who is absolutely essential. In any case, this is a tough question for anyone to answer rationally. When I said there were rational ways to go about perpetuating human flourishing, I meant things more along the lines of reciprocity and solidarity. Out of curiosity, how would you answer this question?

You say that morality is the measure of how well a social group is achieving that end, right? But you said above that there is no metric for all of this. It sounds to me like all you have is a general moral 'heuristic' rather than any definitive ethical system, let alone any solution to the problems that plague mankind. So, far, I'm not seeing how your system will be better than that of Jesus.

Let's be careful, now. It's not that this approach is "better" (whatever that would mean) than that of Jesus, it's that this approach is more factually defensible than one based on the moral authority of Jesus/God/Holy Spirit. I can tell you exactly why slavery is immoral using nothing but facts we both agree on. 1) The condition of being a slave is one of irredeemable suffering. 2) Slaves are not and have never been necessary for the existence of the human race. 3) Unnecessary, irredeemable suffering is immoral to impose on someone. 4) Slavery constitutes unnecessary, irredeemable suffering. 5) Slavery is immoral. A moral system based on Jesus, on the other hand, takes a lot more steps to condemn slavery as immoral, plus it then has to contend with the OT's implicit acceptance of the practice, and even then I don't think it can be successful. Instead of basing morality on the rationally expected consequences of one's actions in terms of societal health (and in turn, personal well-being), such a system depends on the factual existence of God and his factual moral authority, both of which require long discussions at the end of which you and I are unlikely to agree. You don't necessarily have fewer facts on your side, especially if you're right, but I believe I can demonstrate the facts my side relies on better than you can yours. And that's not a comment on either of our debate skillsets, that's just based on the nature of the claim you'd have to defend vs. mine.

How do you propose to encourage conformity to your moral heuristic?

This is a separate question to the validity of a moral approach, but a fair one nonetheless. Moral actions will naturally improve the individual’s social standing, which makes everything easier for that individual. They’ll also align with one’s conscience, granted that it is based on empathy and an intuition of social consequences. Moral considerations are nothing more than practical considerations of social consequences.

To the credit of your position, this would mean that an infinitely wise being would automatically be an absolute moral authority simply by virtue of its perfect foresight and judgment. The hard part for you is to demonstrate that it actually exists.

Well, I'd agree if I could grasp that you've actually grappled with the issues involved in the supposed institution of slavery as is it expressed in the Bible. (At present, I'm not sure you've begun to grapple with all of the little contextual details that come to bear upon what we're actually "seeing" in the bible when we talk about the concept of servitude. Granted, a lot of the confusion that persists to this day has been caused by people who have claimed to be "Christian"--such as those white slave masters in the Antebellum U.S.---who have mishandled, misconstrued, outright ignored or 'added to' the O.T. Laws and thereby thought they were justified in enslaving and mistreating African-Americans whom they stole from their respective homelands.)

I’m not a biblical scholar, but just going by the article you provided and our mutual disdain for a dynamic within which it was acceptable for one to severely whip another with no consequences as is clearly described in the Bible, I think the problem is clearly stated. You are welcome to lead the way here in exploring how “(the master) shall not be punished” can be squared with the unacceptable nature of said dynamic.

You're right. No one today would choose to live in a society in which they might end up as a mistreated servant or slave; but even today people are doing some crazy things because, as you've already admitted, the world (assuming there's no god) doesn't provide for everyone's needs.

Sure, and that doesn’t mean the crazy things other people are doing (including actual slavery that still exists in Asia and Africa) are moral.

So, I'm not convinced you've actually undertaken a fuller exploration of the structure and essence of the O.T. Testament Laws, let alone take into consideration what a full fledged implementation of Jesus' supervenience over the Old Covenant. Of course, as a modern day Christian, this isn't to say insinuating support for replacing our present legal system. I'm not. But I do think a strong shot of Christianity into what seems to be an otherwise deficient Democracy and an overextended subscription to Laissez-faire Capitalism would be helpful, at least as things are in the U.S., other nations having other questionable political structures that need to be considered separately. The point is, 'loving our neighbors' whoever they may be, whether red or yellow, black or white, should be a mandate, not an option. In fact, in both the Old and the New Testaments, we find that there is a general mandate to care for and love one's peaceful, good-hearted neighbor, whoever that may be.

Thoughts?

Well, I think the only reasons you can cite for wanting “love your neighbor” to be a mandate are practical ones; you’re someone’s neighbor and you’d like them to be nice to you, and if everyone’s nice and peaceful with each other you’ll have a very safe, predictable life. Following such a mandate is doing your part to create the kind of society you want to live in.
Even if you appeal to God’s authority rather than social consequences for this mandate, the only incentive you would have to follow said mandate would again be a practical one. God has some sort of consequences in store for those who do and do not obey, and you want the consequences of obedience.

 

[Halbhh]

If Christians worked to end slavery, then they clearly worked against the will of God; for it is His will that people should be slaves. We've established this clearly.
God set up the rules by which slaves are to be captured, bought, sold and abused; and neither He, nor Jesus, ever changed the m.
Now, I understand that, as a moral being, you find slavery repugnant. So do I. But, clearly, God does not. And any discussion of how Christians may or may not have worked to end slavery is irrelevant, since the point, as shown in the Bible, is:
God approves of slavery.

While the progression to regulate slavery gradually more and more is evident in the scripture to someone with the neutrality to simply see all the text, without filtering out parts, I get it that you are really saying something like:

Why didn't God make the world and humanity fully perfect in the very beginning, never able to do evil?

Or

Why didn't Israel get 100% of all perfect law right at the start, without any progression?

After all, if you feel you are a 'good' person, you could look far into the past and feel so much more moral and better than a world where slavery was the universal practice around the world.

You could say: I know better, and why didn't God make them better immediately, even initially, or very quickly, in a hundred years, or whatever time period you choose. Say, 1 year, or 300.

Why isn't slavery 100% extinguished right now in 2019? Why does it continue right now, including inside the U.S. also?

Christians abolitionists, preachers that changed the minds of hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands -- and those whose minds they changed also -- pushed to end slavery in our secular laws because it was the clear will of God in the New Testament.

That some others tried to claim to be Christian while ignoring the passages in the New Testament doesn't change that at all, and you wouldn't want to merely be another variation of merely ignoring the words that don't fit what one preferred.

In reality Christ is still very challenging to hear today, because He will say to you things that you are not already doing, and should do, and that isn't comfortable.

Comfortable would be instead to ignore.

But is that all you want, to only ignore? I doubt you'd say you want to simply ignore. In reality Jesus, the Christ, today, still challenges everyone.

In effect you are really arguing -- why doesn't everyone do what Jesus said.

 

[cvanwey]

... you mean, you're willing to take in the complex contexts within the Bible, along with its historical inter-textual meanings and take ALL of this, on the whole, as a whole....and seriously?

Wow. You really are making some prog.....................................oh. I see. That's not the course you seem to be on here.

This response does not appear to align with what I said. Which is, this topic seems better 'geared' for fundamentalists.

You are not a fundamentalist.

I stated that non-believers appear warranted in their assessments/conclusions that all verses referencing slavery appear 'man made assertions from a God', since such assertions appear in contradiction to a God whom also asserts 'the golden rule' as the greatest rule; just behind loving Him. Again, as stated prior, most do not aspire to be owned as property, unless we are speaking about the minority populous whom belong (voluntarily) to such clubs/groups/other, in a mutually understanding/arrangement. So for God to state the beating and owning of 'slaves' is allowed, seems to fly in the face of such a 'golden rule.' Sure, you could argue that God is 'okay' with the mutual arrangements of such minority arranged populations, which is fine I guess. However, many verses speak of 'the taking of or the buying of slaves.' It speaks nothing specifically about what 'slavery' is and is not. No later NT verses ever update/rectify/change the previous allowances either. Jesus simply lightly brushes the entire topic; leaving interpretation up in the air entirely. Again, if Jesus never mentioned slavery at all, then you MAY have a case. But the fact that Jesus weighs in on the undefined subject of slavery, means you are now in a 'pickle.' Which is....

Jesus endorses or allows slavery, in all of it's forms, 'OT style' included

Not a 'trick,' ay?

I actually would not even need to, even if I wanted to I will just simply follow what you say, down to it's logical end.

...if we've already established that the O.T. FORM of servitude is "allowed," even though discouraged, quite unlike in the U.S. of the 1600s to 1800s, then it seems to be a moot point. This is especially moot if you refuse to 'test' me according to a complex of studies that require one to enter into, and remain within, the Hermeneutic Circle. Are you ready to do that? I hate to ask, not so much because it's a burden for people to actually do, but because I've already asked you questions above that ... you [for the record] just blithely skipped over.

I only skip stuff, if it appears unwarranted. As I stated prior, 'how many books must a read to reconcile a contradiction?' The answer, 'we have a contradiction'. Please also read my response above for further details. Slavery is undefined. Which means we could logically include 'chattle slavery' into the mix. The definition I provided of such almost aligns, word for word, with Biblical verses (i.e.):

'person who is owned for ever and whose children and children's children are automatically enslaved. Chattel slaves are individuals treated as complete property, to be bought and sold. Chattel slavery was supported and made legal by European governments and monarchs'

Now compare to:

'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.'

And guess what? I will hold you accountable for that recognized misstep. Make no mistake about that! Oh yeah, I'm different than the others here; not only do I want to see 'white power' diminish to a level of mere parity with all other people groups here in the U.S., but I would also like to see people of all kinds--yellow, red and black and white--keep proper Hermeneutics in their sights.

I'm currently holding you accountable for your failing to account for the most basic of inferences. Once you can reconcile the conflict(s), you will then see that reading more literature will not help

 

[cvanwey]

And with what I stated above, here's a verse that should have made some difference all along:

Isaiah 58:12.

I don't find much resolve in such an ambiguous passage. So I again ask...

Please provide a verse(s), which 'disallows' for the likes of the formerly defined concept of chattle slavery? And even if you could, which you most likely won't, how would you reconcile such a passage with what the Bible does seem to allow for, (undefined none-the-less)?

 

[Halbhh]

I don't find much resolve in such an ambiguous passage. So I again ask...

Please provide a verse(s), which 'disallows' for the likes of the formerly defined concept of chattle slavery? And even if you could, which you most likely won't, how would you reconcile such a passage with what the Bible does seem to allow for, (undefined none-the-less)?

Matthew 7:12 In everything, then, do to others as you would have them do to you. For this is the essence of the Law and the prophets.

 

[Halbhh]

I don't find much resolve in such an ambiguous passage. So I again ask...

Please provide a verse(s), which 'disallows' for the likes of the formerly defined concept of chattle slavery? And even if you could, which you most likely won't, how would you reconcile such a passage with what the Bible does seem to allow for, (undefined none-the-less)?

Perhaps you'd do better to ask a more basic question:

Why aren't we perfect to begin with? Why did civilization, the rule of law, have to be gradually a progression, instead of just all-perfect-all-at-once-from-the-start of humanity?

Slavery continues today, including inside the U.S.

More, secular law also replicates in its own way the progression over time in the Bible -- a gradual accumulation of more restrictions, over time.

You could look for 20 seconds and see for yourself, or I can copy and quote it if you prefer:
Maryland Rape and Sexual Assault Laws - FindLaw

Why so many detailed provisions necessary, you think?

Why? because people don't do this:
Matthew 7:12 In everything, then, do to others as you would have them do to you. For this is the essence of the Law and the prophets.

Do they?

 

[Halbhh]

What's wrong with Maryland, that they need so many detailed provisions?

Code Sections
Maryland Criminal Law Article, Sections:

• 3-303: Rape in the First Degree and 3-309 for attempted
• 3-304: Rape in the Second Degree and 3-310 for attempted
• 3-305: Sexual Offense in the First Degree and 3-311 for attempted
• 3-306: Sexual Offense in the Second Degree and 3-312 for attempted
• 3-307: Sexual Offense in the Third Degree
• 3-308: Sexual Offense in the Fourth Degree

What’s Prohibited?
The various forms of sexual assault that are prohibited in Maryland include:

• Rape
  • First Degree – engaging in sexual intercourse with another without his or her consent by force, using weapons, strangling or inflicting serious physical injury, threatening with death, serious injury, or kidnapping, or committed with another’s help or during a burglary
  • Second Degree – engaging in vaginal intercourse with another 1) without his or her consent by force or threat, 2) with a mentally or physically incapacitated person (includes drunk, high, or unconscious) when the defendant knows of his or her condition, or 3) the victim is under 14 years old and the defendant is at least 4 years older than the victim
• Sexual Offense
  • First Degree – engaging in a sexual act (oral or anal sex, or any object or part of one’s body penetrates the genitals or anus for sexual gratification, but not vaginal intercourse – that’s above in rape) by force, threat, or without consent while displaying a weapon, suffocating or physically injuring the victim, or threatening the victim with death, disfigurement, or serious physical injury, or committed with another’s help or during a burglary
  • Second Degree – engaging in a sexual act with another by 1) force or without his or her consent, 2) with a mentally or physically incapacitated person (includes drunk, high, or unconscious) when the defendant should know of his or her condition, or 3) the victim is under 14 and the defendant is at least 4 years older than the victim
  • Third Degree – includes any of the following:
    • engaging in sexual contact (intentionally touching the victim’s or defendant’s genital, anal, or other private parts for sexual gratification or abuse of either person) in any of the following situations:
      • Without consent while using a weapon, strangling or seriously injuring the victim, threatening the victim with death, serious injury, or kidnapping, or committed with another’s help OR
      • The victim is mentally or physically incapacitated (drunk or unconscious for example) and the defendant knows of his or her condition
      • The victim is under 14 years old and the defendant is at least 4 years older
      • Engaging in a sexual act (i.e. oral or anal sex) or vaginal sex with a 14 or 15 year old victim by a 21 year old or older defendant, AKA statutory rape
  • Fourth Degree – any of the following:
    • Engaging in sexual contact without the other’s consent
    • Engaging in a sexual act or vaginal sex with a 14 or 15 year old when the defendant is at least 4 years older
    • Engaging in a sexual act, sexual contact, or vaginal sex with a child under 18 who at the time of the sexual activity was a student enrolled in a school where the person was in a position of authority (i.e. a principal, coach, teacher, or counselor who’s at least 21 years old, employed by the school, and was in a supervisory position over the student)

Penalties
In Maryland, most statutes provide both the crime and the applicable penalty. The penalties for the crimes listed above are:

• Rape
  • First Degree – Generally, life imprisonment is the maximum sentence for this crime or attempt of this crime. However, if a person commits the rape on a kidnapped child under 16, had a prior conviction for first-degree rape or sexual offense, or raped a child under 13 while over 18 years old then life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is the maximum sentence available.
    • Note: There’s a 25-year mandatory minimum prison sentence if the rape was by a person over 18 of a child under 13. The court can’t suspend any part of those 25 years neither is the person eligible for parole.
  • Second Degree – Generally, the penalty by up to 20 years in prison, including for attempted second-degree rape. However, if a person 18 years or older rapes a child under 13 the minimum prison term is 15 years and maximum is life in prison.
• Sexual Offense
  • First Degree – Usually this crime or attempt of this crime is subject to life imprisonment. However, if a person was previously convicted of first-degree rape or sexual offense, commits the rape on a kidnapped child under 16, or the defendant is over 18 and the victim was under 13, then life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is the maximum sentence.
    • Note: The same 25-year mandatory minimum prison sentence applies here if the defendant was over 18 and the victim was a child under 13. None of the 25 years can be suspended by the court, nor is the person eligible for parole.
  • Second Degree – Usually, the punishment is a maximum of 20 years in prison, including for attempt. However, if a person 18 years or older sexual assaults a child under 13 the minimum prison term is 15 years and maximum is life in prison.
  • Third Degree – A felony with a sentence not more than 10 years in prison
  • Fourth Degree – Typically, this crime is a misdemeanor punished by not more than one-year imprisonment and a fine not more than $1,000. However, if a person previously committed a sex crime, the punishment is increased to 3 years in prison and a fine up to $1,000.

Maryland Rape and Sexual Assault Laws - FindLaw


Ah, could it be they need a lot of laws because people don't generally all do this one? --
Matthew 7:12 In everything, then, do to others as you would have them do to you. For this is the essence of the Law and the prophets.

 

[cvanwey]

While the progression to regulate slavery gradually more and more is evident in the scripture to someone with the neutrality to simply see all the text, without filtering out parts,

No, just.....no. Please re-read the OP. Slavery is 'regulated' in the extent that if you are not an Israelite.... Other than this, you are allowed to be kept for life, beaten for life, and considered property for life. No other verses negate such allowances. And even if there was such a verse(s) which did as such, we still have two issues:

1. Why implement two diametrically opposing verses - (it's okay vs it not okay)?
2. God seemed to be 'okay' with such forms of slavery in the past, and is now 'not okay' with such practices.

I get it that you are really saying something like:

Why didn't God make the world and humanity fully perfect in the very beginning, never able to do evil?

Or

Why didn't Israel get 100% of all perfect law right at the start, without any progression?

No. He is saying God allows for slavery. Now and always. Period.

And now, since you do not 'like' some of the forms of 'slavery' in which also come within this topic, you are now desperately trying to 'justify' it. But since 'slavery' is NOT defined by the Bible, one could again legalize chattle slavery, and use the Bible to justify it, without 'sin'; as God does not define what slavery is not, and allows for such

Why isn't slavery 100% extinguished right now in 2019? Why does it continue right now, including inside the U.S. also?

Again, what would it matter if it was? It's not a sin, according to God. That's the point. God deems such a topic 'a-okay'. There is nothing 'progressive' to look towards.

Christians abolitionists, preachers that changed the minds of hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands -- and those whose minds they changed also -- pushed to end slavery in our secular laws because it was the clear will of God in the New Testament.

I would love to see a verse in the NT in which states that Jesus no longer wished for humans to enslave other humans as property? And even if there was such a verse(s), again, please read above... (i.e.) God was okay with it, but is now not okay with it?

In reality Christ is still very challenging to hear today, because He will say to you things that you are not already doing, and should do, and that isn't comfortable.

This is where one is to put on their 'thinking cap.' When Jesus stated to give away all your possessions to the poor, I think we all realize to take this suggestion in stride. If we all did this, we would experience economic collapse. So I instead 'take it in stride', and take the 'moral lesson' that it's 'good' to help the ones less fortunate than you, as much as you can.

But with the concept of the topic of slavery, Jesus never clarifies what a slave is and is not. Seems as though Jesus/God would know how DUMB humans are. Meaning, the term slave is a loose term. He never attempts to clarify it. And since, watches as millions apply it, at will. And furthermore, there exists no such writings to state any of it is considered 'sin.'

why doesn't everyone do what Jesus said.

Because if we did, slavery is not a sin. So I again ask, why even bring up that it was Christians that abolished slavery? Why is that a proud 'feather in your cap' moment? Jesus could care less if it's abolished. Jesus allows for it.

So in affect, what (you) are saying, is that it is the Christians which don't like slavery. Why does Jesus not agree wholeheartedly?

 

[cvanwey]

Matthew 7:12 In everything, then, do to others as you would have them do to you. For this is the essence of the Law and the prophets.

Yes, and as I stated many responses ago, to 'allow' for slavery, is diametrically opposed to Matthew 7:12, or using the variation I used prior, Mark 12:31

Let's break this down, shall we...

Slaves are considered property.
Humans own property.
Property does not possess human rights, as property is a possession.

Since a slave is considered property, they do not possess the same exclusive 'rights' as non slaved humans.

So to use a verse to treat other humans as you would want to be treated (i.e.) Matthew 7:12 or Mark 12:31 does not really apply; as you lost your 'equal' human privileges once becoming a 'slave'.

This is not MY conclusion, This is instead the conclusion specified by the Bible.

Please try again.