Is the existence of Christianity better for this world

[2PhiloVoid]

The Bible (particularly the OT) is a collection Ancient Near East religious and legal texts. As such from a modern sensibility some of it is "problematic", but not particularly more so or less so than any other similar set of ANE texts. I am not particularly bother by the "problems" of the text as to me it is nothing more than a collection of ANE texts. Of course when people use it to make claims about something in our present time (the subject of the thread)...

Do you mean secular biblical studies going back to the early 19th century? The ones that treat the Bible as what it is -- a set of ANE texts

Yes, those biblical studies. I'm glad to know that you're also familiar with ANE texts.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

How does it do that? The OT is a collection of ancient texts, assembled, edited and redacted to suit a particular theological agenda. Those texts have--at least in principle and to a large extent in practice--a determinable history. They are what they are and studing them in that light doe not change them any or "tear them apart,." If anything, it will increase our understanding go their meaning.

You've misunderstood my insinuations made to previous posters, but I'll just be a little more clear here as I always have been for the last 15 years I've been on CF.

Where moral problems seemingly arise when engaging the biblical texts, the supposed secular moral framework (or Ethics) used by secularists to gripe about apparent ancient biblical morality evident in those texts, we have to remember that where Ethics is concerned, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Ok well it seems to me your understanding is skewed based on one video of another skeptic who is biased in the first place. Any reasonable assessment including from biblical scholars will acknowledge that not all slavery is deemed the same.

No, Steve. The referenced word has nothing to do with slavery apologetics specifically. It is merely a word created by a YouTuber for bad apologetics. You made some bad apologetics, so I used that word.

But there is no room for nuance in the skeptics rule book. Its all negative and aimed to bring down God and the bible.

I have no interest in bringing down your god or holy book. Neither holds interest to me. Your religion on the other hand...

Heres a simple question. Do you think there were indentured slaves or economic slaves so to speak. Or that people willingly and happily became servants. That is apart from other slaves at that time throughout nations such as in Egypt and Babylon who had a more inhumane slavery. Was there any destinction between these forms.

I think it was a brutal and oppressive time and I have serious doubts about *any* claims of willing and happy slaves, ever.

Do you mean Tom Ballard. But the film I think is a good example of Christainity at work in shining Christs truth and light into the hidden and dark secrets and evils of this world. I think this type of behaving has thrived in a modern Godless world. The church may have their skeletons but I think that pales into insignificance if we knew the truth of what is happening.

Close, but you might want to reconsider lionizing him:

Tim Ballard - Wikipedia

The heading of that section in Leviticus says 'The Law Concerning Slavery' so it contains rules about slave owning. You also have to realise that Leviticus is not the only book that deals with slavery. There is also Exodus and Deuteronomy.

I was talking about the other laws about how to treat strangers and aliens in general which formed the basis for how they treated others including slaves and servants.

Skeptics take one verse and forget about all the others that contradict this. When the full text is read it overwhelmingly supports the truth that God through the Isrealites began to regulate and change the practice of slavery which included not abusing slaves.

Its mentioned in Leviticus 25:40 … He shall serve with you until the year of the jubilee. The slave code still applies.

This was a Covenant between God and the Isrealites made well before the Isrealites formed a nation. God said he would not enslave the Isrealites again in that way. They were to have a higher standard to prepare the way as Gods people and the fullfillment of prophesy of the coming Messiah.

The truth principle that we are all made in Gods image applies to all. But God made a Covenant with the Isrealites. He chose one people to bring about his plan for all humankind.

None of this recognizes the different treatments between Israelite and non-Israelite slaves under the Torah.

You could say that this was actually a negative for the Isrealites as they have been the most mistreated people in history. But you choose to only see certain benefits according to your own beliefs and worldview.

Boo-hoo. I don't care about these claims of greatest mistreatment.

Not necessarily and not if the skeptic is basing this on a false assumption.

What skepticism got to do with this. It's not about being "skeptical" of anything.

For starters the the Hebrew word 'Ebed' does not mean 'slave' but 'servant or worker' in many cases. This is way different from what people today think of when we hear the term “slave” being about the Antebellum South with all of its brutality and dehumanization. Its a logical fallacy of false equivelance.

Second if you look at what it says about the slaves from other nations or aliens living within the Hebrew nation you will see that ultimately these people were treated the same as Hebrew servants as far as being humane.

A slave could work their way to becoming free and that any escaped slave from another nation also gained freedom as the Hebrews could not own them nor send them back to their masters thus giving them freedom (Deuteronomy 23:15-16 ).

God reminds the Israelites three dozen times to care for the “alien,” and no doubt this includes foreign servants ie “So show your love for the alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt” (Deuteronomy 10:19) and (Deuteronomy 23:15-16) "If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master. Let them live among you wherever they like and in whatever town they choose. Do not oppress them".

Also notice the language of Lev 25 verse 45: “the sojourners who live as aliens among you” who can be “acquired” as servants. Now note the verse I quoted earlier in Leviticus 19 the Israelites are called to love the alien and treat him as they would a native in Israel (Leviticus 19:34), We don’t suddenly have justification for mistreating aliens in chapter Leviticus 25 even when they are servants.

Also the verse says Isrealites “may acquire” foreigners as servants (verse 44). So its not a commandment. To acquire a foreign servant involved an official agreement. It may have been for debt or in poverty and volunteered. Since foreigners could not acquire property they would have to link up with Hebrew households to live which can be a good arrangement. Then they could later assimilate into the wider Isrealite culture (e.g., 1 Chronicles 2:34-35)

So we see there was a lot of difference in how the Isrealites approached slavery compared to surrounding nations and was certainly not the same as the American slavery as skeptics try to conflate. So yes this shows the Hebrew version of slavery and servants was less inhumane.

More excusifying for an ancient slavery you have no need to defend.

Hum I think outside the Hebrews it was pretty barbaric.

I would agree that the slavery of non-Hebrews by the Israelites was pretty barbaric.

But heres the thing. What moral basis are you basing this moral outrage on.

Do I need really to specify why I think slavery and bondage and force labor and exploitatlve contracts are immoral?

Skeptics borrow from Gods morality to make these objections.

What are we skeptical of, and why do you think after the stuff you've just laid out I'd need to borrow the morality of your book?

Without that same moral basis there is no right and wrong to slavery beyond human created ideas which we know are fallible.

Plus demanding that history should be changed where God just stops all slavery by miracle is unreal. Slavery was not Gods doing but one of humans and God allowed humans to reject Him and do things their way.

God sometimes works with a system and changes it from within. Deals with the realities of life in how humans (not God) create the world. Thomas Aquinas talked about this with his 'Doctrine of Providence'. Gods plan doesn't always go according to how we think but it does work to a good and rightious end.

I'm not interested in Christian theology, new or old.

But slavery was not all bad for that time as you falsely make out. There was no currency apart from human labor. If someone was in debt, committed crime or just wanted a better life by selling themselves as a servant it was economics for that time. That is good and not bad and nothing like the false equivelance of the brutal slavery skeptics conflate.

It doesn't as we are moral beings who can intuit the pain of others from birth. But its the rational of an atheistic ideology to justify this truth as being a law unto humans that must stand regardless of limited human ideas and beliefs.

If we take the materialist and atheists worldview that humans are just a higher animal form without any purpose than to suvive and pass on genes then we can see a stark difference in metaphysics about human worth. Its natural or at least understandable logically despite skeptics claims for a Godless world to see humans this way.

But also the idea that morality is subjective individually and relative culturally is self defeating as far as establishing some independent truth or law that no human can alter as principly there is no morality to determine human worth apart from what humans come up with. That is why there is little respect for manmade Human Rights.

At least for Christains they can stand on the truths that we are made in Gods image and are equal in worth in Christ which stands above human ideology. To defy this truth would be a breach of Gods word and laws and a grave sin that will be judged by rightious God.

You missed the point. This shows that under subjective morality what is morally right and wrong depends on the present culture and that ultimately there can be no moral truth under this worldview. Each culture thinking they are more moral than the past only to find out that they were also wrong in a never ending cycle of relative morality.

I'm not interested in your self-righteous Christian moralizing. I find it hollow.

Its not a trope but reality and I think your creating a trope by pretending otherwise. I mean even the equivication of all biblical slavery being like the Ante-bellum days is a misrepresentation. The Hebrew word 'ebed' doesn't even mean slave but rather 'servant or worker'. So skeptics are getting all moral over a misinterpretation of the text they claim to be experts on.

Once again, your poor understanding of American history betrays you. The American slavers used the same notions of happy, healthy, and willing slaves. The reality that when they had the chance most would run away or worse.

Once again its not an excuse but a legitimate arguement. First there were endentured slaves and it was an agreement as explained above and not like forced slavery against a persons will. But skeptics totally ignore this and falsely conflate this with the American slavery. So their moral judgement is skewed and they are not in any position to be truth holders on this. That is is a fact.

Not a fact.

Second I'm not saying that todays form of slavery in terms of slave labor exploitations and poor treatment is like the Hebrew slavery. I am saying todays is worse. The Hebrews ensured fair, just and humane treatment of slaves.

Once again your judgement is skewed due to your own bias.

According to you. But we have already established that your moral judgements may be skewed and bias on this.

I'm fine with my skewed bias and I will take my morality over yours any day, and twice on sunday.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yes, those biblical studies. I'm glad to know that you're also familiar with ANE texts.

Yes, those biblical studies. I am familiar with the *existence* of those texts, but I've no more read them in proper context than any other ancient texts. I am familiar with the study of them as presented by actual scholars which leads me to two conclusions:

1. Our friend does not know what he speaks of.
2. The one ancient text I own a translation of is not quite what I was lead to believe.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

...............................................IN before the LOCK!!!!!!

 

[BCP1928]

You've misunderstood my insinuations made to previous posters, but I'll just be a little more clear here as I always have been for the last 15 years I've been on CF.

Where moral problems seemingly arise when engaging the biblical texts, the supposed secular moral framework (or Ethics) used by secularists to gripe about apparent ancient biblical morality evident in those texts, we have to remember that where Ethics is concerned, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

The griping amounts to a form of reductio ad absurdom. They know that the texts are for the most part descriptive but not necessarily proscriptive--as many Cnristian moralists do not.

 

[stevevw]

It is by no means an idea that is unique to Christianity or derived solely from it. Buddhism, for example, has always taught that all people have equal spiritual worth, regardless of caste, status, or origins.

Thats true as this truth is inherent in the universe, in nature and humans are born with a sense of justice and kindness towards others.

But Christainity took this truth and made it an unwritten law in the west. But it was not the wests truth but came from a Jewish religion 1,000s of years ago. So it wasn't just a case of religion but a reality, an unwritten law from beyond humans.

That is what changed the pagan world at that time where humans varied in worth like animals and their social status based on human ideas of human worth.

Other religions like Buddhism are expressing the same truth principle. The point is even if we disregard that Christainity was the sole originator of these truths the principle that human worth is determined by God or gods or any transcendent entity beyond human ideas still stands.

This relates back to another point which was that fundementally we have two worldviews battling to establish world order. A secular, atheistic and material metaphysics or a transcedent, immaterial and spiritual metaphysics where humans are subject to God or a god who holds the truth and unwritten laws over humans. As opposed to humans being the gods of their own world order.

It is this basic truth principle regardless of 'which religion' (but which Christainity perfectly fits) and can only be rationalised by a religious belief as it involves something transcedent beyond the material as opposed to the non God or god worldview that has to find its rational in limited human ideas which we know are fallible.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The griping amounts to a form of reductio ad absurdom. They know that the texts are for the most part descriptive but not necessarily proscriptive--as many Cnristian moralists do not.

Did you intend to say prescriptive rather than proscriptive?

Here's the deal, though: I essentially agree with what you're saying, but I've heard dozens of ex-Christian atheists over the years (decades) apply their own personalized reductio to the O.T. and.......................................they then give a free pass to their own current worldview and their own adherence to the modern Ethical zeitgeist, and they do so without flinching a single critical, philosophical, sociological eyelash.

Needless to say, you're homey here doesn't play that!!!! Every........ ethical position..............no matter how modern...........is criticizable and no amount of socialized, liberal, left leaning rationalization (short of sheer Marxian proletariat style stonewalling) will make it impervious to valid analytic criticism.

On the other hand, this isn't to also say that I place a stamp of approval on the methods of a Matt Walsh or a Candace Owens.

'Cuz I don't.

 

[BCP1928]

Did you intend to say prescriptive rather than proscriptive?

LOL! No, I meant proscriptive "Thou shalt not..."

Here's the deal, though: I essentially agree with what you're saying, but I've heard dozens of ex-Christian atheists over the years (decades) apply their own personalized reductio to the O.T. and.......................................they then give a free pass to their own current worldview and their own adherence to the modern Ethical zeitgeist, and they do so without flinching a single critical, philosophical, sociological eyelash.

Yes, those terrible ex-Christian atheists.

Needless to say, you're homey here doesn't play that!!!! Every........ ethical position..............no matter how modern...........is criticizable and no amount of socialized, liberal, left leaning rationalization (short of sheer Marxian proletariat style stonewalling) will make it impervious to valid analytic criticism.

On the other hand, this isn't to also say that I place a stamp of approval on the methods of a Matt Walsh or a Candace Owens.

'Cuz I don't.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

LOL! No, I meant proscriptive "Thou shalt not..."

I see. I had to ask because, unfortunately, I know a number of Christians who do indeed take the O.T. somewhat prescriptively as well as proscriptively.

Yes, those terrible ex-Christian atheists.

I didn't besmirch their character. I've merely alluded to the fact that many of them fail to take their own medicine, and they tend to deflect by presenting their arguments in a unilateral fashion, insisting that their arguments should be politically and ethically impervious to any criticism.

Yes, I know. Some of their habits come from being former evangelicals and they've taken their former religious verve with them into their atheism.

 

[stevevw]

No, Steve. The referenced word has nothing to do with slavery apologetics specifically. It is merely a word created by a YouTuber for bad apologetics. You made some bad apologetics, so I used that word.

And I said that your determination that it was bad apologetics was faulty in the first place.

I have no interest in bringing down your god or holy book. Neither holds interest to me. Your religion on the other hand...

Then why spend so much time and effort on Christain forums telling Christains how wrong and deluded they are.

I think it was a brutal and oppressive time and I have serious doubts about *any* claims of willing and happy slaves, ever.

You think it was a brutal and oppressive based on your own feelings and beliefs which are based on unfounded assumptions.

Close, but you might want to reconsider lionizing him:
Tim Ballard - Wikipedia

I don't lionize anyone except God and Jesus. All I know is that the saving of children from sex trafficking was God inspired.

None of this recognizes the different treatments between Israelite and non-Israelite slaves under the Torah.

It seems your more upset that GOd favoured the Isrealites than your objections to slavery in the bible. Despite God favouring the Hebrews He still ensured better treatment of Hebrew, aliens and foriegn slaves and servants than anyone had did. Which led the way to abolishing slavery.

Boo-hoo. I don't care about these claims of greatest mistreatment.

Ah so why are you concerned for the mistreatment of the slaves of the Isrealites then. That is your objection isn't it. I would have thought any fair and just reasoning of this would acknowledge the Jews also suffered the same thing as you are accusing them of dishing out.

More excusifying for an ancient slavery you have no need to defend.

Ok so I have given two general and well acknowledged apologetics on this which covers a few arguements and you have dismissed them all as excuses. That leaves very little left to say on the factors and context of slavery in the bibel.

In other words you have more or less dismissed everything to ensure the only conclusion that will be reached is that God through the Jews committed abuse and had no regard for humane treatment. Which then allows you to discredit Christ and Christainity.

But this is expected. If a person disbelieves God and dispise His actions in the Old testament as a priori then thats the only conclusion you can come to regardless of the truth.

I would agree that the slavery of non-Hebrews by the Israelites was pretty barbaric.

Yet you have supplied not one piece of evidence but rather expressed your personal opinion. If the treatment of non Hebrew slaves was barbaric then you will have to explain these verses which you seem to ignore. Not one bible verse says Hebrews can be barbaric to slaves including foriegn slaves.

Leviticus 19:33-34 “When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God".

This verse appears only a few chapters before Lev 25:45 where it mentions "the sojourners who live as aliens [hagarim] among you as servants"
The Isrealites are called to love the alien and treat them as a native. This command to love the alien doesn't suddenly change with Lev 25.

In fact God states to the Hebrews some 30 plus times not to treat foriegners and aliens badly by using the example that they were once slaves and were mistreated as foriegners in Egypt. How is this not evidence that this was a clear law and command not to mistreat anyone, any foriegn slave or free.

Deuteronomy 23:15-16 “You shall not give up to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. He shall dwell with you, in your midst, in the place that he shall choose within one of your towns, wherever it suits him. You shall not wrong him.. So the Hebrews allowed escaped foriegn slaves who had escaped from his master to go free and become locals enjoying equal rights.

Do I need really to specify why I think slavery and bondage and force labor and exploitatlve contracts are immoral?

Force labor and exploitive contracts. Where are you getting your information from. some conspiract website. Show me where the bible uses exploitive contracts or forced labor.

The Isrealites did not force people to become slaves they aquired them, that is bought them from those who were already slaves for various reasons such as debt, punishment for crime ect. Bonded servants entered into voluntary agreements to pay debt or when poor.

The verse actually states that Israelites “may acquire [qanah]” foreigners as servants (Lev 25: 44). This was not mandated as it say “may acquire” and to “acquire” involved an official contractual arrangement.

What are we skeptical of,

Sorry I could not think of another word. Perhaps atheistic views. But someone who dismisses everything no matter what. Overly cautious or resistent to admitting the facts or truth due to personal reasons such as an opposing worldview (materialists) skepticism of immaterialism.

and why do you think after the stuff you've just laid out I'd need to borrow the morality of your book?

Well whose morality are you basing this moral outrage on to be a truth claim. As I mentioned it took the Christain truth principle that humans were 'made in Gods image' and equal in Christ to change peoples morals and beliefs on slavery.

This was the basis for every human being worthy and equal because this transcended human worldly ideas and elevated humans with the divine. Human worldviews did not have any equivelant concept as they did not believe in anything beyond the subjective, material and deterministic world.

I'm not interested in your self-righteous Christian moralizing. I find it hollow.

How exactly is this self-righteous Christian moralizing. I have just pointed out a couple of fundemental Christain truths about human worth and slavery.

If you mean our discussion about slavery then isn't that exactly what you are doing by moralising about the bible. Are you not taking a self-righteous position in claiming moral truths over the bible and Christains.

Once again, your poor understanding of American history betrays you. The American slavers used the same notions of happy, healthy, and willing slaves. The reality that when they had the chance most would run away or worse.

Once again you make misrepresentations and conflations between the American slavery and the Hebrew slavery and servitude. The American slavers notions or rather justifications that slaves were happy, healhy and willing slaves was an obvious and proven lie. This is evidenced by the treatment of black American slaves.
Enslaved people were punished by whipping, shackling, hanging, beating, burning, mutilation, branding, rape, and imprisonment. Mutilation of slaves, such as castration of males, removing a front tooth or teeth, and amputation of ears was a relatively common punishment during the colonial era. Any punishment was permitted for runaway slaves, and many bore wounds from shotgun blasts or dog bites inflicted by their captors.[21]
Treatment of slaves in the United States - Wikipedia

The claim that servants were content in most cases under the Isrealites can be factually shown. There was no such treatments like above by the Hebrews.

The fact that the Isrealites acquired servants and slaves and did not take them by force is is a fact. There are many examples of happy slaves in the bible, loving their masters and wanting to stay with them.

For example, Exodus 21:5 “But if the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,’. This was a law so it was common that servants loved their masters or employer as they were treated well and became part of the family. Why would a servant love his master if he treated him brutally.

Boaz “acquires” the foreigner Ruth as his wife (Ruth 4:10). Ruth voluntarily came to be with Boaz and goes on to become a great women within Isreal as a foriegner. Paul, Peter, John and other diciples state they are happy servants of Christ. Paul event states he is a servant of the others.

Deuteronomy 23:15-16 says Isrealites must let foriegn slaves go free and live just like the natives with all their rights. Whereas black runaway slaves were beaten to death. That means foriegn slaves would have been happy to escape to Isreal;ites cities as they knew they could be free.

Not a fact.

But you are saying what you claim is fact. Is that right. Or are your objections not based on fact either. You seem to be acting as though your claims are facts and the truth. What do you have that I don't have as far as independent evidence. Or is this just a matter of opinion.

I'm fine with my skewed bias and I will take my morality over yours any day, and twice on sunday.

Why, because its your morality (belief or feelings) or because it can be independently shown to be correct. The difference is I am not using my morality but Gods through Christ. I can make claims to the moral truth based on Gods truth.

Whereas humans cannot as they are fallible, delude themselves with selfish motives and desires. This is well supported by our own lived experiences of continually getting it wrong. Whereas Christ was sinless.

 

[BCP1928]

In other words you have more or less dismissed everything to ensure the only conclusion that will be reached is that God through the Jews committed abuse and had no regard for humane treatment. Which then allows you to discredit Christ and Christainity.

And it never occurs to you that what he is really doing is just debunking your puerile arguments. He might disagree with Christinity but it's not necessary to disagree with Chrustuanuty in order to disagree with you.

 

[stevevw]

And it never occurs to you that what he is really doing is just debunking your puerile arguments. He might disagree with Christinity but it's not necessary to disagree with Chrustuanuty in order to disagree with you.

No he is disagreeing with Christainity. What I am saying is the Christain position. Why do you think Christains agree with Hans. That they agree God and the Isrealites were evil and barbaric. I don't think so.

Nothing I have said is not also said by all Christains and Christain scholars. Really its common sense and reasonable arguements. For example I said that the word slave (Ebed) can mean a number of things such as endentured slave, bond servant, slave, worker or companion like an off sider.

But Hans said this was excuse making for simply pointing out the obvious. How is it excuse making when its a basic and well acknowledged fact about properly interpreting the word. It should be one of the first things we clarify to ensure proper context. If we are not even allowed to check basic interpretations and context then thats just bad epistemics and opens up misrepresentations.

When people debate they implicitly commit to upholding epistemic values such as proper interpretations, not creating logical fallacies or being dishonest ect. If we can't even agree on this then theres no sense in having a debate.

 

[BCP1928]

No he is disagreeing with Christainity. What I am saying is the Christain position. Why do you think Christains agree with Hans.

Actually I can think of one Christian Right off the bat who agrees with Hans in this case.

That they agree God and the Isrealites were evil and barbaric. I don't think so.

No more so than anyone else at the time--that's the point.

Nothing I have saidf is not also said by all Christains and Christain scholars. Really its common sense and reasonable arguements. Fior example I said that the word slave can mean a number of things such as Endentured slave, Bond servant, slave, worker or companion like an off sider.

Right. And that proves you are right just like your map of the Mississippi proves that Tom Sawyer was a real boy.

But Hans said this was excuse making. How is it excuse making when its a basic and well acknowledged fat about properly interpreting the word. It should be one of the first things we clarify to ensure proper context.

And, of course, you are the only one who knows how to interpret the word. But the bottom line is still this: Christianity has no better record than any other religion when it comes to slavery.

 

[stevevw]

Actually I can think of one Christian Right off the bat who agrees with Hans in this case.

What that God and the Isrealites were evil and barbaric. That seems contradictory. Besides we are not talking about one off dissenters but the official Christain position. Your more or less telling Christains what their belief is or is not.

No more so than anyone else at the time--that's the point.

No its not the point. Did not you read my post. I linked bible verses that clearly show how the Hebrew slaves and servants were treated differently and better than the surrounding nations. This assumption that they were no better is a lie plain and simple and saying its just excuse making is just away to deny the truth.

Right. And that proves you are right just like your map of the Mississippi proves that Tom Sawyer was a real boy.

Here we go again. Like I said your logic is no different to saying facts like the earth is a sphere or the laws of gravity are just map making and not reality. Just another way to deny the truth. When the evidence gets to much just deny the evidence with false representations.

And, of course, you are the only one who knows how to interpret the word.

No this is a common interpretation. A proper one based on the proper meaning of the original words and not the made up trigger words that modern day skeptics want to use. Did you know that the original bibles, the KIng James bible only mentioned slaves once. The rest was about servants and bond servants. Its only modern day interpretations that change the original that use the word slave.

Now this is not my opinion but facts about the proper interpretation of the original Hebrew word.

The term “slave” in the Old Testament is an unfortunate translation of the Hebrew word ebed (the female equivalent is amah—“handmaid”). This word—better translated “servant” or “worker”—is related to the verb abad (“work” or “serve”). Unfortunately, unlike earlier translations like the King James Version, where the term “slave” appears only once in the Old Testament, many modern translations, strangely, have adopted the emotionally-loaded rendering “slave” or “slavery.” This term becomes something of a “trigger word” to modern ears even though the word meant something far different in its original setting in Israelite law.
Servitude in Ancient Israel (Pt. I) | Reasonable Faith

But the bottom line is still this: Christianity has no better record than any other religion when it comes to slavery.

Yes it does. This is just blatantly false. For starters look at the principle verse that Christains use to denounce slavery throughout history.

The abolition of the slave trade: Christian conscience and political action
The campaign for abolition was spearheaded by devout Christians, and it stands to this day as perhaps the finest political achievement of what would now be called faith-based activism.

The abolition of the slave trade: Christian conscience and political action - Cambridge Papers

The abolition of the slave trade: Christian conscience and political action by John Coffey

www.cambridgepapers.org

Even the Left leaning Wiki admits it was Christainity that began the abolitionist movement.
It was Christian activists, attracted by strong religious elements, who initiated and organized an abolitionist movement.[1]

Christian abolitionism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

But I guess you could always use your fallacy of map of the Mississippi to once again deny the truth.

 

[BCP1928]

I'm not sure you get the trope about Tom Sawyer and a map of the Mississippi. Tom Saywer was a story by Mark Twain about a young boy growing up in a Mississippi river town. Consequently, the river and events which took place along it were important to the story. The river was accurately described by Twain, because he was a river boat pilot who grew up in a river town very like the one described in the story.

The question then becomes, was Tom Sawyer a real boy, just like the river was real? Or was he a fictional character? How would you prove it? Do you think that bringing in an official map of the Mississippi to show that the river in the story was real and and accurately described will help prove that Tom Sawyer was a real boy?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What that God and the Isrealites were evil and barbaric. That seems contradictory. Besides we are not talking about one off dissenters but the official Christain position. Your more or less telling Christains what their belief is or is not.

No its not the point. Did not you read my post. I linked bible verses that clearly show how the Hebrew slaves and servants were treated differently and better than the surrounding nations. This assumption that they were no better is a lie plain and simple and saying its just excuse making is just away to deny the truth.

Here we go again. Like I said your logic is no different to saying facts like the earth is a sphere or the laws of gravity are just map making and not reality. Just another way to deny the truth. When the evidence gets to much just deny the evidence with false representations.

No this is a common interpretation. A proper one based on the proper meaning of the original words and not the made up trigger words that modern day skeptics want to use. Did you know that the original bibles, the KIng James bible only mentioned slaves once. The rest was about servants and bond servants. Its only modern day interpretations that change the original that use the word slave.

Now this is not my opinion but facts about the proper interpretation of the original Hebrew word.

The term “slave” in the Old Testament is an unfortunate translation of the Hebrew word ebed (the female equivalent is amah—“handmaid”). This word—better translated “servant” or “worker”—is related to the verb abad (“work” or “serve”). Unfortunately, unlike earlier translations like the King James Version, where the term “slave” appears only once in the Old Testament, many modern translations, strangely, have adopted the emotionally-loaded rendering “slave” or “slavery.” This term becomes something of a “trigger word” to modern ears even though the word meant something far different in its original setting in Israelite law.
Servitude in Ancient Israel (Pt. I) | Reasonable Faith

Yes it does. This is just blatantly false. For starters look at the principle verse that Christains use to denounce slavery throughout history.

The abolition of the slave trade: Christian conscience and political action
The campaign for abolition was spearheaded by devout Christians, and it stands to this day as perhaps the finest political achievement of what would now be called faith-based activism.

The abolition of the slave trade: Christian conscience and political action - Cambridge Papers

The abolition of the slave trade: Christian conscience and political action by John Coffey

www.cambridgepapers.org

Even the Left leaning Wiki admits it was Christainity that began the abolitionist movement.
It was Christian activists, attracted by strong religious elements, who initiated and organized an abolitionist movement.[1]

Christian abolitionism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

But I guess you could always use your fallacy of map of the Mississippi to once again deny the truth.

While I actually agree with your basic premise, Steve, I think the problem here is that there has historically always been chaos, tyranny, slavery and war in the world, and Christians haven't always helped that situation all that much over the last 2,000 years.

There's another (3rd) way this whole [SET] of ideological problems pertaining to justice can be assessed, but I find very few who actually have any desire to acknowledge it and engage it because they already have their sights set on removing Christianity as a working Worldview from the world scene and replacing it all with an "apparent" socialist flavor of political arrangement.

It's really THIS, the current post-world war 2 zeitgeist, that is the central issue, not the explaining of the various ancient social disparities we find in the O.T.

 

[Hans Blaster]

t seems your more upset that GOd favoured the Isrealites than your objections to slavery in the bible. Despite God favouring the Hebrews He still ensured better treatment of Hebrew, aliens and foriegn slaves and servants than anyone had did.

I can find them both bad, but one is worse.

Steve-- the difference in treatment of slaves is WHY I MENTIONED IT IN THE FIRST PLACE. It was against you claim that the Bible was "pro equality" of everyone. It isn't. It is a "God's Chosen People" book.

 

[MehGuy]

Hard to say. I do believe Christianity has had a big impact on people being hyper emotionally empathetic towards others. While I have some personal worries about that, I do believe such a mindset has helped alleviate the suffering of others. I just think we can achieve the same results using different means.

 

[Lukaris]

I believe the implicit, underlying spirit of the Gospel is anti slavery. The primary point though is salvation of humanity to everlasting life ( 1 Timothy 4:10). St. Paul knew the state of the world around him with disasters like the Servile Wars. This was just trying to live life as best as possible under the given conditions ( Romans 12:17-18 etc.).

Servile Wars - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org