Is Slavery Moral?
- Thread starter cvanwey
- Start date
God does not deal in morality. That is a human concept. God deals in obedience. God also deals in allowances.
Loving thy neighbor is an obedience issue not a moral one. Slavery is a concept of man. God allowed it. But God also demanded obedience when it came to the treatment if them. We may call it immoral if we wish, but that is our concept.
Loving thy neighbor is an obedience issue not a moral one. Slavery is a concept of man. God allowed it. But God also demanded obedience when it came to the treatment if them. We may call it immoral if we wish, but that is our concept.
Upvote
0
- May 10, 2018
- 5,165
- 733
- 64
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Skeptic
- Marital Status
- Private
Call it whatever you wish... If God exists, God 'allows' the beating of human property, just as long as the 'human property' survives the beating beyond day number two.
If slavery is a concept by man, then why does God speak of it explicitly? God 'validated' and 'allowed' a human invented concept?
Blind obedience is certainly not 'moral'.
I guess if a future dictator rules over their country, and decides to enact slavery as law, and you were randomly chosen to be slave in that country, you would not blame God right? Even though God never speaks against, but 'allows' for it in the very book the dictator claims as their objective reference point?
And since the Bible never says not to own other humans as property, the future dictator would be well within their rights to do so, objectively. But don't be mad at God, even though the dictator referenced the Bible as objective law 'allowing' slavery, whom imposes the enslavement and beatings upon you.
Thanks
Upvote
0
If you want my personal and subjective view, based on what I understand from the history of textual criticism, and the broader view of contemporary historical sources...
Then no. ( with some caveats)
My view of the OT is the it's in entirety written by people in order to communicate a certain perceived version of God as they retrospectively cast a moralistic view and model of reality on their own historical past.
Keep in mind that both OT and NT are written in genre of religious literature. There was no scientific literature for these people to refer to in that day. They communicated past events, educated their children, etc... using these kinds of stories.
Hence, the moral of these stories is not about "here's a book on science, societal economics, and law". The moral of these stories is : "If we don't try to live up to transcendent ideals that we should set for ourselves, then there will be natural consequences and we'll slide into cultural oblivion".
Could I be wrong? Did God dictate Moses what he did, or did he write down the 10 commandments with his "finger", whatever that would mean? Sure, I could be wrong about it, but I don't think so.
Do I think that it's inspired by God, in a sense that if it's viewed as a whole, it communicates transcendent ideals that attempt to describe (by analogy) what the creator God may be like?
Yes.
Do I think that, in that context, these stories are useful for education of such ideals using these stories as a storytelling device for thinking contextually about these ideals?
Yes.
I hope it makes sense.
It's likely not a view that most of the Christians here would agree with, but I don't see any other way to describe it given my understanding and personal research.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- May 10, 2018
- 5,165
- 733
- 64
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Skeptic
- Marital Status
- Private
Thank you for your honesty.
Due to possible limited human understanding, does there maybe exist an actual enlightened method of conclusion, for Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25:44-46? Does any moral context exist, in which humans have not realized, which enslaving others for life, beating them to just short of death within 48 hours, referring to them as 'property' for life, and passing them off to your offspring would be considered superior 'transcendent ideals'?
Thank you again
Upvote
0
Allandavid
Well-Known Member
- Dec 30, 2016
- 8,056
- 6,929
- 70
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
Yup let's not run from this as Christians. That's what the OT taught. However the NT taught that slavers were evil. It also taught that if you had a slave they were to be treated as a brother in Christ not someone to beat on.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- May 10, 2018
- 5,165
- 733
- 64
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Skeptic
- Marital Status
- Private
Christ never updates the OT, in regards to slavery. Christ mentions slavery, but does not state 'hey, do not beat slaves nearly to death anymore.' Instead, the verses appear rather lateral. Meaning, He speaks of it, but does not denounce prior OT scripture about slavery. Furthermore, Matthew 5:17-18 is also fairly clear.
As stated prior, if a future dictator comes into power, and claims the Bible as objective law, this dictator would be well within their rights to legalize slavery, as professed in Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25:44-46; and Christians could not protest it, without first blatantly refusing scripture passages ;-)
Upvote
0
Well, again, I've explained to you my position on this several times by now:
We have to map what the term "slavery" means in context of reality.
Let's say that we would define it as a harshest reduction of that term:
Restricting,and forcing people to some type of labor without compensating them for such labor.
Even in the harsh context of what slavery is... we do have examples TODAY where we justify such treatment of people as a form of punishment alternative of which could only be death penalty.
Thus, even in the HARSHEST POSSIBLE context of the word "slavery" we have a justifiable context TODAY. We don't label it "slavery", but a rose by different name is still a rose. We transfer prisoners between various corporate prisons that receive state funding "per person" as a form of payment. We have guards use force, and at times beat them if they incite violence.
Hence we do have such context in scope of ideals that we hold today. I'm not sure if that answers what you are asking me.
Upvote
0
Allandavid
Well-Known Member
- Dec 30, 2016
- 8,056
- 6,929
- 70
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
Yes, I’m sure many of you would like to water down the concept of slavery to such a lukewarm reduction....
It’s about OWNERSHIP OF ANOTHER HUMAN BEING...!
It’s about being able to buy a human as property, as you might a table or a cow and to keep that property for life, or sell it on, or pass that property on to your children, for them to use as they see fit.
Honesty counts....
Upvote
0
Kemet
Member
- Jun 10, 2018
- 16
- 1
- 67
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Skeptic
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
To attempt to answer your question, No. My christian upbringing, teaching and lifelong examination of the Bible, lists Moses as the author of the first five books of the Christian Bible and Tanakh of Judaism.
99.9 % of the Bible (Old and New Testament) and the Tanakh of Judaism (Old Testament) are supposedly written by men inspired by God, which is open for vigorous debate. The only scriptures that are supposedly actually written by God are the Ten Commandments.
Slavery is immoral and the slavery scriptures in the Bible and Tanakh of Judaism read like an operational manual with instructions and guidelines for the enslavement of humans.
The New Testament of the Bible has a number of scriptures that instruct slaves on how loyal and obedient they should be to their masters, and how they should without hesitation--carry out the orders of their masters....etc...
There is even a long parable of Jesus in the book of Luke, that talks about menservants and maidens (teenage girls or young women) who's master/owner/ruler gets drunk and beats--and depending on the offense, is punished with few or many strikes.
Nowhere in the New Testament does Jesus talk about the immorality of slavery---and as it relates to his parable in Luke, under no circumstances should any man in a drunken state (or not) strike men or teenage girls.
A parable in the Bible (written in red in many Bible's), relays the moral teachings of Jesus.
Luke 12:
42.And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of meat in due season?
43.Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.
44.Of a truth I say unto you, that he will make him ruler over all that he hath.
45.But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken;
46.The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.
47.And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
48.But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.
Upvote
0
- May 10, 2018
- 5,165
- 733
- 64
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Skeptic
- Marital Status
- Private
Thank you again for your answer, but let me make this pretty simple...
A fundamental Christian president is elected in the future. The house and senate are also majoratively fundamental Christians as well. Collectively, they ultimately re-institute and legalize slavery in the U.S. again. Please demonstrate a Biblical verse the fundamentalists could adhere to which would go against the re-legalization of slavery in the U.S.? And by slavery, I mean owning other humans as property for life, beating them just short of death, and never letting the non-Jews go, ever. Not prisoners...
My point? A future leader could re-issue slavery in practically any fashion, and no one could stop it (if the U.S. is observing objective Biblical dictates). Meaning, the Bible allows slavery, in pretty much any form.
And since you already stated, in a prior post, slavery is immoral, I would really like to know how God is considered omnibenevolent?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Sanoy
Well-Known Member
- Apr 27, 2017
- 3,169
- 1,421
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
I think that is the right understanding. There are two revelations of God, His general revelation available to all which includes the apprehension of trancendent and objective moral values and duties which refer to His divine nature, and His explicit revelation which comes through Theophany.
So when have verses like this, that form the laws of national Israel, Moses is formulating these laws based on the culture of His time and the general revelation of the moral landscape available to all. With the backdrop of the cultures surrounding Isreal it is very clear that Moses did achieve progress through the apprehension of God's general revelation. It doesn't match our level of moral epistemology, but it is a striking contrast in the culture of that time which shows that Moses is apprehending that same objective system of moral values and duties as we do today. And if those values are grounded in God then it is God that inspires all moral goodness, including this example of moral progress in culture.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
First of all, I think you are missing a point. Christianity is not a collection of verses that were handed down from God that you read and you justify something like slavery, or decide that something like slavery should not be legal.
Christianity is a set of principles expressed in a life of a person that exemplified these principles. And the core principles are grounded in egalitarianism and serving one another.
There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
The greatest among you will be your servant. For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.
That's what supposed to "fix the world", and not specific do and don't, because these are very limited to a context that may no longer apply.
Well, a future leader wouldn't be able to do that unless the culture of such leader would support that. It will not be the case is most of the world today, unless you are still in a country like Mauritania, where slavery is very much intact, and in India where cast system is so deeply ingrained in the culture that it will take several successive generation to eradicate, even after modernization.
You have to think about it in a broader economic context.
Did slavery make economic sense?
I'm not really sure that such labels are useful, because these are not really meaningful in context of certain paradoxes. If God exists, then God is God... with transcendent attributes some may attempt to describe, but we can't. We don't know what God is like in context of the reality of God. We can only attempt to model using the language of our reality. Hence we come up with hyper-bolic "likeness".
So, God is like your father... but like a super-father times infinity. It may make sense how God could be like a father, but the latter doesn't make sense.
Hence, I generally avoid the "omni" type of attributes, because these don't communicate anything in particular.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- May 10, 2018
- 5,165
- 733
- 64
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Skeptic
- Marital Status
- Private
Subjective morals change all the time. There is no doubt human subjective morals will be vastly different 50 years from now as well.
I'm going to make this even simpler... In the future, if slavery were ever again legalized, would it be considered 'sin'?
The answer is NO. Sin is considered going against divine law. In this case, Yahweh's law. No such verse says not to own others as property with beatings.
It's very very simple... If slavery were ever re-legalized, for any reason, it is not sin, according to an instructed book inspired by Yahweh.
Slavery can be run in a number of ways, and not conflict adversely with Biblical dictates.
Assuming that humans in the U.S. will never again let it happen again, is actually placing faith in humanity, over faith in the Bible. If humanity fails, to again look to the Bible for clarity, there appears to be nothing wrong with slavery (again, according to Yahweh's inspired words).
Thoughts?
Upvote
0
You are taking a page from necessary regulations and legal structure for a rather barbaric culture, an you are attempting to imply that it's a universal permission and justification to have such culture as an ideal.
I'll make it simpler for you :
I'm a vegetarian, and I cling to a certain ideal in respect to my diet and treatment of animals. We could say that on a personal level (for me) I view certain animal treatment and food farming as barbaric and immoral. Let's say I convince the current president of that, which is not going to happen, but let's say that I did.
So, the president will get up on the podium tomorrow and will say "Guys, eating meat is a part of the barbaric remnant of our past, we should have better respect for life... so eating meat is illegal from this day on". And he signs an executive order making killing animals for food illegal.
What do you think would happen realistically? Would people stop eating meat? Would people stop killing animals for food? Would people start enforcing such practice?
NO. Absolutely nothing would happen. The conservatives would bury such president alive, and liberals would dance on his grave.
So, the best he could do is donate some government charities to education on this issue, or become a vegetarian himself, or create some general regulations against cruel treatment of animals, and lay out some principles that would eventually result in a paradigm shift in our cultural understanding.
So, in a scope of moral proclamations, the plausibility will only make sense with established cultural paradigms.
Eradicating slavery doesn't result by making a specific moral proclamations, but by shifting cultural paradigms in which such moral proclamations would make sense.
Hence, your understanding of this issue seems to stem solely on basis of proclamation, as though that's what drives our motivations, and that's not the case. A single statement of "This is wrong" or "This is Ok now" will not result in a cultural paradigm shift.
Again, coming back to this issue. I'll make it very simple for you too
We could make a list of rules for your kids:
1) Don't hit one another.
2) Don't spit at each other.
3) Don't pee on each other.
4) Don't yell at each other.
And then they come back and ask... is throwing rocks at each other ok? So, you ad it to the list and say. No, it's not ok. And then they come back and say, "Is it ok to throw a piece of wood then?", and you add that to the list and say "Don't throw hard objects at each other".
And the it goes on and on, until you basically say: "Don't do something to each other what you wouldn't want other person do to you". Or, "Love one another, and here's what a loving attitude is like... it's patient, it's kind, it's forgiving, etc".
So, concept is that principled approach to morality will transcend context.
What you are doing is very much like the kid in the above illustration... saying "But there's nothing here that says that owning and beating people is wrong. In fact, here it says that it's ok".
And then I keep showing you a transcendent principle of :
"Love one another, and here's what a loving attitude is like... it's patient, it's kind, it's forgiving, etc".
"Don't do something to each other what you wouldn't want other person do to you"
And what you seem to imply that such principles don't encapsulate such behavior as wrong and immoral. Why would you think so?
You seem to think just because someone could point to this verse, then it will automatically justify slavery, but it's absurd when it comes to a wide variety of transcendent principles that would clearly condemn and invalidate such behavior as wrong.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Again, I'm not sure you can honestly say that when it comes to principled approach that both Judaism and Christianity hold.
For example:
“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
The above commandment supposed to guide all of the human action, because it frames the foundational axiomatic approach to how Christians are to view reality.
Please tell me how one can read above and conclude that it advocates forced labor, and beating people to half-death with a stick?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
