Slavery IS Regulated in the Bible!

[cvanwey]

No, because involuntary slavery, or anything you'd not want others to do to you...

...is always wrong, by Matthew 7:12.

Again, answered loooong ago....

Slaves are property. Less rights.

Also...

If Jesus never mentioned slavery by name, sure. But He does. He would surely know that slavery, in all forms, takes place ('good', 'bad', ugly'). And yet, He tells such individuals to serve their masters, whom are believers, even harder. Why not simply add one simple verse stating, 'do not own involuntary slaves.' Done, it's a wrap!

He has no problem telling the slave what to do, and yet, not one verse telling the master what NOT to do (i.e.) 'Don't own them.' Odd....

So I again ask, does God consider slavery a sin? And please continue to remember, whatever Jesus does NOT abolish, He allows.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

"There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

I'm a little busy today, so not much time to comment. But I really have to address this.
You realise, when Paul said this, what he was talking about?
He was talking about circumcision.

 

[Halbhh]

If it were THIS simple, why extrapolate all other said 'laws'? (i.e.) Don't murder, don't steal, etc...... We are going in circles here. You certainly would not need to extrapolate that being murdered or being stolen from is not voluntary There exists MANY 'laws' God applied, which appear obvious. And yet, He makes MANY provisions FOR slavery. Odd....

I'm not sure why you keep cleaving to this verse? This is certainly NOT a 'catch-all' phrase.

Where in the Bible does it speak about it being sin to take 'involuntary slaves'?

Again, slaves are not given the same rights as 'non-slaves' the second they were considered property by God Himself. Hence, God let's everyone know what slaves ARE allowed to do (i.e.) worship the Christian God, please their masters, get beaten, get inherited, and be considered property, ALL FOR LIFE.

Please stop mentioning this verse. It fails.



Slaves are property. Hence, God must setup provisions as to what 'rights' slaves do have. Which is, they are allowed to worship God, work harder for their slave masters if their slave masters are believers, allowed to be beaten without protest, are considered property, and can be inherited, all for life. Unless, again, if you are a Jewish male whom did not start a family while enslaved.

I think of Mathew 7:12 as the how-to for the law, which itself Christ summarized into the 2 great commandments.

It's quite simple, but only "few" will follow. Most will not.

To see others as less, property, is already breaking it.

E.g. 1 John 4:8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

 

[Halbhh]

I'm a little busy today, so not much time to comment. But I really have to address this.
You realise, when Paul said this, what he was talking about?
He was talking about circumcision.

Suggest you check on that.

Unless you have a commentary, and your commentary is adding flourishes like Paul's metaphorical how we are now 'circumcised in the heart', ok -- but don't lose the overall meaning. (or just read your commentary more fully, and not partially?)

The main meaning of the verse is plain -- all are equal in Christ. If you come away without that, you've not understood the verse.

You could do ok with the free online Ellicott's:
" This verse continues the proof that all Christians are, in the fullest sense, "sons of God." Galatians 3:27 showed why this was so; the present verse shows that there are no exceptions, no inequalities. All Christians alike, no matter what their race, status, or sex, stand on the same footing of sonship before God. There is a unity or solidarity in the Christian body. What is true of one is true of all."
Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

 

[cvanwey]

I think of Mathew 7:12 as the how-to for the law, which itself Christ summarized into the 2 great commandments.

It's quite simple, but only "few" will follow. Most will not.

You are right! Most will not follow. I.E. the prior Christians you boasted about who attempt to abolish slavery. Meaning, most think slavery is a 'sin'. But Jesus does NOT. Otherwise, He would not have setup specific rules for such actions, including, but not limited to ---> (beating for life, property for life, inherited for life, work ever harder for the slave masters (if they are believers) for life, graciously allowed to worship Yahweh, etc.... How do you 'square' this?.?.?.?

To see others as less, property, is already breaking it.

Then (YOU) need to find a way to 'square' that statement with the OT God, whom mentions as such, not me (i.e.):

'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.'

Because Jews are special, as to not be ruled over as 'ruthlessly', and for only a finite amount of time, under specific conditions of course.

And in regards to the New Covenant God, whom further speaks of slavery, never mentions how slave masters are to only keep the (voluntary) slaves.... So again, the fact that God does not abolish it, means He at least accepts it. Meaning, it is not sin, which is in stark contrast to your conclusion.

E.g. 1 John 4:8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

Apparently. this 'love' allows for slavery, without sin. But you think slavery is sin. Again, how do you 'square' this contradiction?

Request #nueve:

1. If you are a Jew, you are not to be enslaved for life. But if you are not a Jew, you can be enslaved for life. If we are 'all one in' with Christ, why the Jewish favoritism? Seems as though Jesus is fond of the flesh, Jewish flesh specifically.

2. God allows slavery then, now, and forever. Any form of slavery is permissible, as slavery is not well defined. God does not consider slavery a sin.

3. Your notion of progressive revelation seems odd. God allows slavery, and does not consider it sin. So why then is there a need for it to later be changed or abolished?

4. God would know people use all forms of slavery. And yet, God never clarifies that any of such slavery is 'wrong.' If God knows humans are either dumb, or self serving, why would God not clarify what type of slavery is not permissible?

5. In affect, what (you) are saying, is that it is the Christians which don't like slavery... Why does Jesus not agree wholeheartedly? Why is it a 'feather in your cap' moment that America abolished slavery, when Jesus could care less if it's abolished? Jesus allows for it.

6. Slaves are considered property (less-than-human). Slave owners are to do with their slaves what they will, as instructed by the NT.

 

[Halbhh]

You are right! Most will not follow. I.E. the prior Christians you boasted about who attempt to abolish slavery. Meaning, most think slavery is a 'sin'. But Jesus does NOT. Otherwise, He would not have setup specific rules for such actions, including, but not limited to ---> (beating for life, property for life, inherited for life, work ever harder for the slave masters (if they are believers) for life, graciously allowed to worship Yahweh, etc.... How do you 'square' this?.?.?.?



Then (YOU) need to find a way to 'square' that statement with the OT God, whom mentions as such, not me (i.e.):

'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.'

Because Jews are special, as to not be ruled over as 'ruthlessly', and for only a finite amount of time, under specific conditions of course.

And in regards to the New Covenant God, whom further speaks of slavery, never mentions how slave masters are to only keep the (voluntary) slaves.... So again, the fact that God does not abolish it, means He at least accepts it. Meaning, it is not sin, which is in stark contrast to your conclusion.



Apparently. this 'love' allows for slavery, without sin. But you think slavery is sin. Again, how do you 'square' this contradiction?

Request #nueve:

1. If you are a Jew, you are not to be enslaved for life. But if you are not a Jew, you can be enslaved for life. If we are 'all one in' with Christ, why the Jewish favoritism? Seems as though Jesus is fond of the flesh, Jewish flesh specifically.

2. God allows slavery then, now, and forever. Any form of slavery is permissible, as slavery is not well defined. God does not consider slavery a sin.

3. Your notion of progressive revelation seems odd. God allows slavery, and does not consider it sin. So why then is there a need for it to later be changed or abolished?

4. God would know people use all forms of slavery. And yet, God never clarifies that any of such slavery is 'wrong.' If God knows humans are either dumb, or self serving, why would God not clarify what type of slavery is not permissible?

5. In affect, what (you) are saying, is that it is the Christians which don't like slavery... Why does Jesus not agree wholeheartedly? Why is it a 'feather in your cap' moment that America abolished slavery, when Jesus could care less if it's abolished? Jesus allows for it.

6. Slaves are considered property (less-than-human). Slave owners are to do with their slaves what they will, as instructed by the NT.

The problem some of your questions is the faulty premise that after Christ anyone can be mere property to a Christian. If they were to some slave owner who also claimed to be Christian, then such a slave owner was not doing what he claimed to be. He was false. Lacking fruit. And would be "cut off" by God Himself, and such cut off branches are gathered and "burned" Christ said.

 

[Halbhh]

Dp

 

[Halbhh]

3. Your notion of progressive revelation seems odd. God allows slavery, and does not consider it sin. So why then is there a need for it to later be changed or abolished?

The old testament picture is complex, and takes a lot of text/time to play out. Mankind is too often cruel and even evil.

Not only enslaving, but stealing (essentials of life) and slandering, and even worse...raping, murdering, doing false witness even in court where the harm is so much greater than typical slander, etc.

To guide us up out of this normal evil (of that era in humanity) upward from barbarism slowly into the Rule of Law -- where instead of a king as highest, the Law from God is highest -- this is a very hard progression for humanity.

It took not years, but generations.

Even those with faith in God still failed often.

But much worse were those not believing in God. The greater evils such as total lack of charity (total!), and even...child sacrifice, which when continuing warranted erasing such cultures/cities....

The progression, slow and painful, upward towards the Rule of Law, in the texts is often 3 steps forward, and 3 steps backward.

Over and over.

So, what was needed was a way to make key changes at very fundamental levels.

Enslavement itself is simply a cruel outcome of something much more serious - - lack of love.

Thus chapters like this below, warranted by this deeper evil of not even loving one's own children (as a root of the more general not-love) --

1“Surely the day is coming; it will burn like a furnace. All the arrogant and every evildoer will be stubble, and the day that is coming will set them on fire,” says the LordAlmighty. “Not a root or a branch will be left to them. 2 But for you who revere my name, the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its rays. And you will go out and frolic like well-fed calves. 3 Then you will trample on the wicked; they will be ashes under the soles of your feet on the day when I act,” says the Lord Almighty.

4 “Remember the law of my servant Moses, the decrees and laws I gave him at Horeb for all Israel.

5 “See, I will send the prophet Elijah to you before that great and dreadful day of the Lord comes. 6 He will turn the hearts of the parents to their children, and the hearts of the children to their parents; or else I will come and strike the land with total destruction.”
Malachi 4 NIV
(which verse 6 appears again, as regarding John the Baptist's mission in the Gospel of Luke)

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I've noticed you have a selective pattern in your responses wherein you choose those details you find interesting and by which you can proceed to reconstrue what has been said, and at the same time, skip over and ignore those other details stated by your opponent that you find .... inconvenient.

I don't remember finding any inconvenient details on this thread. All of the verses from the Bible are on my side in this debate. There was that time earlier when you told me that I had skipped over details you posted, and I then went back and addressed them.

So, EITHER you're completely dishonest and you're just here to keep turning the wheels of dissolution and dissonance against the Christian faith no matter what

That's rather dramatic. You realise, I don't actually dislike Christianity that much, don't you? I just happen to think that it isn't true. And besides which, the truth of Christianity isn't even what we're discussing in this thread.
Anyway, rest easy. I'm not here to (hehe) "keep turning the wheels of dissolution and dissonance against the Christian faith no matter what".

...OR you and I come at these religious issues/problems from not only utterly different paradigms, but with decisively different individual praxes. And this basically means that we'll essentially disagree not only about the essence of religion, but also as to HOW one should go about evaluating religion (or our political ideals).

Well, with regards to the question of slavery, my approach is fairly straightforward. I simply see what the Bible says God, Jesus and other major figures in the narrative say they think about slavery, and believe them.

So, assuming even that you're honest and actually want to believe in the Christian faith if it just so happens to be true

While that's not inaccurate, it isn't exactly correct either. My point of view on Christianity is that I would certainly like to know the truth about reality, whatever that is; so yes, if Christianity is true, I would want to know that. It's misstating things to say I want to believe in the Christian faith.
You realise, there is also the option of believing that the Christian faith is true and not becoming a Christian. Strangely enough, despite Christians' love of finding "enemies of God", there are no God-hating theists, except of other religions. But that's by the way...

the fact remains that you and I don't see eye to eye on 'how' issues are to be explored, analyzed and evaluated and this means that there's very, very little over which we'll be able to find common ground.

I think we probably both agree pretty much on how to find the meaning of a biblical text. The problem is, one of us has a reason not to believe what he sees, because if it turned out that God was pro-slavery - well, I can't tell what you're thinking, of course, but I imagine that a discovery like this might be something of a blow.

...and likewise, you seem to ignore the fact that the Bible not only endorses loving the well-intended FOREIGNER/STRANGER/SOJOURER, but makes it a de facto point of salvation. If we don't do these things and treat people with care and love, assuming they're not completely criminalized psychopaths, then we can be assured that we'll miss the boat in finding salvation in Christ, no matter how much we claim to be either Christians or some kind of self-avowed "moral skeptic" (whatever that really is...).

I'd like references on this before I comment at length, but it seems to me that the Bible saying that foreigners should be treated well (which it very well may do) is like all of the other references to being nice to people that people seem to think are arguments against slavery: nice sentiments, but not intended to be applied to the institution of slavery.

Well, I have enjoyed our conversations, so best wishes, and adieu.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't remember finding any inconvenient details on this thread. All of the verses from the Bible are on my side in this debate. There was that time earlier when you told me that I had skipped over details you posted, and I then went back and addressed them.

No, they're really not. If you think so, that means you're skipping over a whole bunch of stuff, to put it simply.

That's rather dramatic. You realise, I don't actually dislike Christianity that much, don't you? I just happen to think that it isn't true. And besides which, the truth of Christianity isn't even what we're discussing in this thread.
Anyway, rest easy. I'm not here to (hehe) "keep turning the wheels of dissolution and dissonance against the Christian faith no matter what".

I don't realize you "don't actually dislike Christianity." It's not like you didn't take the initiative to come here for ... whatever personal reasons, reasons that I, as a social science major (and philosophy major), assume are part and parcel of people's motivations. If you've only come here for 'fun'... then we're working on different social wave-lengths, to put it mildly.

Well, with regards to the question of slavery, my approach is fairly straightforward. I simply see what the Bible says God, Jesus and other major figures in the narrative say they think about slavery, and believe them.

You're approach is straigtforward, which when handling ancient Jewish thought structures (whether they be true or not), is the wrong headed way of handling them.

While that's not inaccurate, it isn't exactly correct either. My point of view on Christianity is that I would certainly like to know the truth about reality,

...whatever that is; so yes, if Christianity is true, I would want to know that. It's misstating things to say I want to believe in the Christian faith.
You realise, there is also the option of believing that the Christian faith is true and not becoming a Christian.

... this doesn't even make sense to me, nor does it resonate with my emotively.

Strangely enough, despite Christians' love of finding "enemies of God", there are no God-hating theists, except of other religions. But that's by the way...

... actually, one could say that I dislike other religions, or at the least, that I'm not drawn to them aesthetically.

I think we probably both agree pretty much on how to find the meaning of a biblical text. The problem is, one of us has a reason not to believe what he sees, because if it turned out that God was pro-slavery - well, I can't tell what you're thinking, of course, but I imagine that a discovery like this might be something of a blow.

... forgive me is I decline in agreement; I've got over two dozen books sitting on my shelf dealing with Hermenuetics and Exegesis of the Bible, in addition to the fact that I subscribe to Philosophical Hermeneutics which, essentially, applies to analyses of all of life. So, no, we don't quite agree on "HOW" to find meaning in the biblical text. Let's not pretend we do.

I'd like references on this before I comment at length, but it seems to me that the Bible saying that foreigners should be treated well (which it very well may do) is like all of the other references to being nice to people that people seem to think are arguments against slavery: nice sentiments, but not intended to be applied to the institution of slavery.

And you would be wrong. They are requirments of the Torah, not options.

Well, I have enjoyed our conversations, so best wishes, and adieu.

...if only I could shake you from your Satanic Hermeneutic, then you might "see." But, best wishes as well!

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Since you used the plural "slaves" here, what source are you using? (I'm not asking for an opinion piece, some assumptions or educated guessing of course, but instead some kind of definite information such as from records or such -- what hard source do you know of, if any, about Philemon's having other slaves?)

I honestly don't know if Philemon had more than one slave. When I said that, I was talking about any slaves that he may have had. Maybe he had many, or maybe Onesimus was his only slave. Sorry for any miscommunication.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

...if only I could shake you from your Satanic Hermeneutic, then you might "see." But, best wishes as well!

Nice new profile picture.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I disagree completely. Social order is determined by the people themselves and changes over time. But the people sometimes do believe that it is God ordained usually because rich and powerful promote that belief in order to preserve their privileged status.

The Bible quite clearly shows that God Himself approved of slaves, and gave orders as to ways in which they were to be captured, kept, worked and punished.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The Bible quite clearly shows that God Himself approved of slaves, and gave orders as to ways in which they were to be captured, kept, worked and punished.

See above; I just edited by previous post.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Nice new profile picture.

Yes, it's a classic and a favorite of mine. ... it reminds me just how hard it is to "keep one's head" in all situations.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

What passages "praise" (your word) slavery (using the common meaning of 'slavery' to be involuntary slavery of humans by humans)?

Here's a useful article:
12 Bible Verses about Slavery in the New Testament.
You can see, quite clearly, that the writers of the New Testament were well aware of slavery in society, and that they had no particular objections to it. We can be sure that if they thought it evil, as we do, they would certainly have spoken out against it.
Instead, we have Ephesians 6, Colossians 3, Titus 2 and Timothy 6 calling on slaves to respect their masters, and to serve them with devotion. Not to rise up against them, not to run away, not to reassure them that the writes will do their best to free them - but to "obey those who are your masters on earth, not with external service, as those who merely please men, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord".
We also have Corinthians 7, which says that you are to stay in the place in which you are put, and Colossians 4 calling on masters to treat their slaves fairly. This is a pro-slavery position - the master should be just and kind towards his slaves, and keep them well.

This article also has a good summary of the position of the Bible on slaves and slavery. It makes the excellent point that "This would have been a marvelous opportunity for Jesus to condemn the institution of slavery and its abuse of slaves. But he is not recorded of having taken it".

This is, of course, quite true. If the writers had actually believed that slavery was evil, they would certainly have said so. The simple conclusion is they saw nothing wrong with it.

Also, I'm sure you won't be interested in reading this article, but it does contain a useful little list, which I shall paste in here:

Ephesians 6:5:

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.”

Colossians 3:22 says,

Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.”

1 Timothy 6:1:

All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered.”

1 Peter 2:18:

Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.”

Titus 2:9-10:

Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them, and not to steal from them, but to show that they can be fully trusted, so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive.”

Notice that nowhere does the Bible say what you or I would want it to say: "Slaves, run away from your masters if you can do so safely! And masters, God and Jesus hate your slaveholding. You should free your slaves immediately".

 

[InterestedAtheist]

No, they're really not. If you think so, that means you're skipping over a whole bunch of stuff, to put it simply.

(shrug) Okay. Post references if you want them addressed.

I don't realize you "don't actually dislike Christianity." It's not like you didn't take the initiative to come here for ... whatever personal reasons, reasons that I, as a social science major (and philosophy major), assume are part and parcel of people's motivations. If you've only come here for 'fun'... then we're working on different social wave-lengths, to put it mildly.

That's strange, because I seem to remember you saying there was nothing you liked more than ripping up atheist's arguments.

You're approach is straightforward, which when handling ancient Jewish thought structures (whether they be true or not), is the wrong headed way of handling them.

In this case, it's a simple question with a simple answer. If you disagree with the answer, you have to show why.
I think what's really annoying you is you'd like to disagree with it, but can't.

... this doesn't even make sense to me, nor does it resonate with my emotively.

Of course it makes sense. Isn't it possible to believe that the Christian version God exists, but decide not to follow Him? Funny that nobody ever does, though; it's either (a) people who believe in the Christian God for emotional reasons, (b) people who believe in other gods for emotional reasons, or (c) people who believe in no gods at all for intellectual reasons.

... actually, one could say that I dislike other religions, or at the least, that I'm not drawn to them aesthetically.

Just as I said.

... forgive me is I decline in agreement; I've got over two dozen books sitting on my shelf dealing with Hermenuetics and Exegesis of the Bible, in addition to the fact that I subscribe to Philosophical Hermeneutics which, essentially, applies to analyses of all of life. So, no, we don't quite agree on "HOW" to find meaning in the biblical text. Let's not pretend we do.

In this case, we both agree that to find whether God approves of slavery or not you should look to His words in the Bible.
The problem is, you don't like what they say.

And you would be wrong. They are requirments of the Torah, not options.

Uh-huh. References if you want this to be taken seriously.

...if only I could shake you from your Satanic Hermeneutic, then you might "see."

That's a bit melodramatic.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Suggest you check on that.

Unless you have a commentary, and your commentary is adding flourishes like Paul's metaphorical how we are now 'circumcised in the heart', ok -- but don't lose the overall meaning. (or just read your commentary more fully, and not partially?)

The main meaning of the verse is plain -- all are equal in Christ. If you come away without that, you've not understood the verse.

You could do ok with the free online Ellicott's:
" This verse continues the proof that all Christians are, in the fullest sense, "sons of God." Galatians 3:27 showed why this was so; the present verse shows that there are no exceptions, no inequalities. All Christians alike, no matter what their race, status, or sex, stand on the same footing of sonship before God. There is a unity or solidarity in the Christian body. What is true of one is true of all."
Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Here are a selection of commentaries. The meaning in them is clear:
"It is manifest that the apostle is speaking here concerning circumcision, looked upon as necessary to justification, now under the gospel state. For under the Old Testament undoubtedly Christ profited the fathers, though circumcised; yea, Christ undoubtedly profiled Timothy, even under the gospel, though he was circumcised, Acts 16:3, that being done to prevent a scandal, and during a time whilst, for the gaining of the Jews to the Christian faith, the Jewish ceremonies, though dead, were (as it were) kept above ground, unburied for a time. But for men, after a sufficient time indulged them for their satisfaction concerning the abolition of the ceremonial law, still to adhere to it, and religiously to observe the rites of it, as in obedience to a Divine precept, and as necessary, over and above faith in Christ for justification, was indeed to deny Christ, and disclaim his sufficiency to save, who is able to save to the utmost them that come to God by him, Hebrews 7:25; and besides whom there is no name given under heaven, by which men can be saved, neither is there salvation in any other, Acts 4:10,12; and who is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth, Romans 10:4."

Paul was arguing against the Judaicisation of Christianity, and his particular point here was circumcision. When he said "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus", do you think he was saying that Jews have to become Greeks? Or that women should no longer be subject to their husbands? Of course not. He was simply saying, "It doesn't matter who you are or what you are; you are all welcome to become Christians."

All of the commentaries at the link agree. Paul was imposing his Apolostic authority; he was decrying the need to be circumcised, or the submission to the circumcisers; he was saying that God was all you need. But he wasn't saying anything about slaves at all, just using the word "slave" in a figure of speech. To pick out that single word, and to needlessly extrapolate from it that Paul was advocating for freeing all slaves, is quite simply to misunderstand the meaning.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I think now would be a good time to quote a passage I've been reading. The Reverend Dr. Richard Furman wrote this in 1838. Now, the pro-slavery advocates were, I should point out, different to me. They thought that slavery was just fine. I think it's a terrible evil. But we both agree, the Bible clearly supports it.

I'll let Reverend Furman take it from here, with commentary.

[p8]
Had the holding of slaves been a moral evil, it cannot be supposed, that the inspired Apostles, who feared not the faces of men, and were ready to lay down their lives in the cause of their God, would have tolerated it, for a moment, in the Christian Church.
Excellent point. Jesus and the apostles were quite ready to condemn things that they saw as wrong (like circumcision!) but said nary a word against slavery.
If they had done so on a principle of accommodation, in cases where the masters remained heathen, to avoid offences and civil commotion; yet, surely, where both master and servant were Christian, as in the case before us, they would have enforced the law of Christ, and required, that the master should liberate his slave in the first instance.
Exactly! Did Paul, writing to Philemon, say "It is wrong to have a slave. As a Christian, you should not offend Jesus so"? No! There is some disagreement, even in Christian circles, about what exactly he did mean, but the options are either that he requested that Philemon welcome Onesimus as a fellow Christian and treat him as a kindly master, or that Paul requested that Philemon free Onesimus - not because it was wrong for him to be enslaved, but because Paul liked him and wished to help him.
But, instead of this, they let the relationship remain untouched, as being lawful and right, and insist on the relative duties.
Quite so.

[p9]
In proving this subject justifiable by Scriptural authority, its morality is also proved; for the Divine Law never sanctions immoral actions.

[p10]
The Christian golden rule, of doing to others, as we would they should do to us, has been urged as an unanswerable argument against holding slaves. But surely this rule is never to be urged against that order of things, which the Divine government has established; nor do our desires become a standard to us, under this rule, unless they have a due regard to justice, propriety and the general good.
No doubt some Christians in the nineteenth century also saw "do as you would be done by" as an argument against slavery. Personally, I'd agree with this, but that's because I'm not a Christian who is enjoined to follow God's directions. Anyway, Reverend Furman says:

[p11]
A father may very naturally desire, that his son should be obedient to his orders: Is he, therefore, to obey the orders of his son? A man might be pleased to be exonerated from his debts by the generosity of his creditors; or that his rich neighbour should equally divide his property with him; and in certain circumstances might desire these to be done: Would the mere existence of this desire, oblige him to exonerate his debtors, and to make such a division of his property? Consistency and generosity, indeed, might require it of him, if he were in circumstances which would justify the act of generosity; but, otherwise, either action might be considered as the effect of folly and extravagance.
Coupled with the fact that nobody in the Bible ever called for the end of slavery, or decried it as a moral evil, we can be quite confident that Jesus and Paul would have agreed with Furman. When Jesus said "do as you would be done by" he wasn't arguing for parents should obey their children, or that everyone should give away all their money and possessions - or that slaveowners should be divested of their lawful property.

Once again - I think slaves should have been freed, and so do you, but the evidence is clear that nobody in the Bible agrees with us.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes and no. Remember that from my approach, morality is just a heuristic we use to decide if any given behavior is good or bad for human flourishing. Our reasons for being moral might be dependent on our subjective state of mind, but morality itself doesn’t change. And as far as I can tell, this is true for Christian morality as well. Morality is from God, but your reasons for being moral will still be subject to your state of mind. It seems to me that the only difference between my approach and yours is that, aside from yours having specific non-negotiable moral commandments, you have a god somehow vindicating the common belief that human life is valuable. But that belief doesn’t need to be vindicated (nor do I think it can be, since value is inherently subjective) in order to motivate behavior.

...so it sounds to me like there are some aesthetic qualities tied into the overall moral matrix that sits within our individual skulls.

So, would you say that you 'feel' that your own moral intuition are merely a heuristic, or should they have some prescriptive quality inherent to them by which you should make other people aware who may not share your own moral predilections?

But your question stipulated that the needs couldn’t be met for everyone. My answer would have been the same as yours if I could just suggest that everyone share smaller pieces of the needed goods. In any case, it’s clear we have similar moral sensibilities. And I agree that it’s convenient to have general guidelines from Jesus, but I think it’s dangerous to take them at face value if you can’t go back and justify them in terms of well-being.

That's something to keep in mind, BUT I think it is even more dangerous to displace the centrality of Human Significance with that of Human Well-being ... because without the first, the second is left to our subjective intuitions and faulty moral motivations, wouldn't you say?

This is all good, but the major catch is it’s only compelling if you happen to believe in God and his moral authority. Take away the god, and suddenly you don’t know how to justify any of your moral posturings. That’s why we see so many Christian apologists trying to “stump” atheists by asking “if there is no God, how can you say Hitler was really wrong?” I think my approach is stronger because it doesn’t require belief in as many things, just in the wisdom of making positive contributions to societal well-being. To a certain extent, we can demonstrate objectively how contributing to a healthier society directly contributes to your own personal well-being. We can’t, as far as I’ve seen, demonstrate the existence of God.

True enough. I won't hedge from agreeing with you that my moral point of view does require some notional acceptance, at the least, that God exists, such as even Immanuel Kant would say. But, then, what would Kant say to you position, I wonder?

Are you saying that biblical slavery is acceptable as long as it’s being done to people who don’t want to worship God?

... not quite. The 'problem' here is that some of the conceptual ethical confusion here comes by way of what is imported from our respective metaphysics and epistemologies as they play 'within' our respective attempts to rationalize our respective moralities. In the Bible, God is owner of everything (implying the possibility that we are 'owned' by Him, too), and Satan is a spiritual, maybe even a physical, enslaver. So, the question comes down to, "Who we gonna serve? God or Satan?"

I’m not too worried about servitude, it’s the owner-property dynamic that looks immoral to me. But we'll get into that soon, I think.

...yes, and as I was saying in my comments just above...

Well, the number of steps doesn't matter, but the number of beliefs required to make it compelling does, and that's what I'm arguing mine has fewer of.

I'm not worried about Occam's Razor in this assessment between us because I don't think it applies; in fact, even skeptics I've come across have admitted that the razor can be overused.

The facts I was talking about were the 5 I had listed before, which we've now begun to interpret above.

Your '5' ay? Please proceed.

There are all kinds of practical considerations of personal consequences that no one would really label as "moral," such as laying out your clothes for the next day by your bed at night so you don't have to go looking for them in the morning. There are clear personal consequences for failing to do this, but no one would call it a moral behavior. That's why I think it's more accurate to say that moral considerations are practical considerations of social consequences, even if all you really care about are the social consequences that translate directly to personal consequences.

The problem here is that you have some atheists who think the consequences are ONLY "not getting a ticket," with other people's safety not coming into question. For Christians, other people's well-being in various decisions is not optional, and if they fail to take into account other people's well-being--as God/Christ defines it--then they are morally culpable in various ways.

I don't know about that. From my approach, all our attempts at enforcing morality have been attempts to create a society that bears out the best possible consequences for every member without sacrificing any one for another. Thanos automatically fails at that endeavor (don't get me started on his boneheaded final solution) while an infinitely wise person would be perfectly equipped to set the rules.

...I wouldn't say that "ALL" of our attempts at enforcing morality have merely been attempts to create a society that bears out...

Let's face it; all moral attempts to reform society have not been equal, and some shouldn't even count as attempts at "creating" a better society.

Well, whatever else you want to add into what you mean by "love your neighbor", all the better for my point. If everyone loves their neighbor, it's surely a better situation to live in than everyone not doing that.

Agreed.

No cop, no stop! No, only kidding. There are a few considerations that come into mind when I have the option to break traffic rules. First is safety. Safety is the main reason traffic laws exist anyway, aren't they? I don't want to hurt myself, anyone else, or damage anyone's property. My next concern would be if anyone is watching. Not just those with authority to give me a fine, but other drivers who don't have access to my reasoning and would just witness someone breaking a traffic law and getting away with it. This would be setting an unsafe example, which would only increase the number of unsafe drivers on the road. Finally, my last consideration is why I'm even thinking about doing it. Is there a life-and-death situation dependent on my timely arrival to wherever I'm going? I don't want to make a habit of ignoring traffic signs just because I might get away with it. That can only lead to unsafe habits. In most situations, I'll just follow the rules. But if there's no one around and that illegal u-turn is the last chance to turn around in the next 10 miles, I'm taking it.

...well sure. Even King David, when he was hungry and in dire straights, took the Sacred Bread that was unlawful for him to take to eat ... and God didn't strike him down for it.

But, do you think I go too far when I stop for a stop-sign...................and there's not another car or human soul around for miles? I ask, because I do stop, each and every time, regardless.