Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,172
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,592.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If God desired the end of slavery, he could just end slavery (he never did). Failing that, he could make clear in the Bible that he disapproves and that we should stop it (he never did). Failing that, his earthly representation as Jesus could make it clear that he disapproves (he never did). Failing that, one of the epistle writers could make clear that he disapproves so the Bible could say at least something against slavery (no one ever did). Exodus and Leviticus have extensive lists of laws that ban all sorts of behavior, everything from murder, adultery, incest, rape, inappropriate behavior with animals....why not slavery too?

"If God desired the end of slavery, he could just end slavery..."
Think carefully on it, since slavery is against the Golden Rule, Matthew 7:12, then the question in general form really is this one:
"If God desired the end of evil actions, he could just end evil actions...."

Well, of course, we learn over and over in the Old Testament (OT), and new (NT), that indeed He will, and that meanwhile we are being watched and warned, individually, about the ultimate end of evil that He's carefully and repeatedly given us choices about, that we turn before it's too late for us, as individuals.

It is true the incremental nature of the progression of Law in the OT is like steps, up a stairway, to a more and more advanced change in human society.

Servitude gets more and more regulated, even to the extent servants can simply end an obligation at any moment, without any fear, which is close to making the servitude just mere employment. And for outright slaves, more and more regulation, that increasingly constricts.

Until....

"he could make clear in the Bible that he disapproves and that we should stop it (he never did). "
Ah, you might want to be more skeptical of your own knowledge on this one (in general this is good advice for every person, all the time). For instance, not only the many regulations that limit and control that non-indentured slavery in the OT, but also the revolutionary changes becoming evident in the NT, not just Philemon, itself radical (making the servant not only equal, but radically more equal than modern Americans often are in reality), but the real implication of putting Philemon together with Matthew 7:12, where the only qualifier is flatly "In everything" meaning without any exceptions at all, ever....is too radical for the average American today, but it's the command to Christians.

Experience teaches us when we think at some point some broad unqualified characterization such as yours (seeming so reasonable...), it's always a very good moment to stop and at wonder: "hmmm...I wonder if I got that right or might there be other regulations/laws/instructions that radially alter the situation to be sharply unlike my characterization?"
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

timewerx

the village i--o--t--
Aug 31, 2012
15,202
5,877
✟296,775.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Indeed. Gamaliel was Hillel's grandson. He apparently sent some of his students to warn Jesus of Herod's scheme, and in Acts he refused to kill the Apostles that had been arrested. I think Paul was incensed at his mentor's "weakness" on the Jesus cult, so he did a HUGE social no-no and went to the OTHER guys (Sadducean High priest) to get arrest warrants for Damascus. Gamaliel as president of the Sanhedrin could just as easily issued them.

This is why I don't trust Saul / Paul.

Paul had been given every opportunity but keeps on rejecting Christ.

Paul's "conversion" experience on the desert is doubtful. Since Paul was intimidated by the being he encountered on the way to Damascus. Christ would never appear in a very intimidating form when preaching the Gospel (so they might believe and repent). As Christ only went for those who would love the Gospel, not those who would only accept, short of forcing it to them by intimidation.

I doubt it is Christ he encountered but a counterfeit / deceiving spirit. Not only this being is uncharacteristic of Christ's behavior (including mentioning its name as Jesus which Christ never did!). The Christ also warned us against anyone who would claim to see Him in the desert.
 
Upvote 0

Barney2.0

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Dec 1, 2017
6,003
2,336
Los Angeles
✟451,221.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Don't be silly. I am not saying that laws about such mundane things as diet, what to wear, and when not to work are on a par with slavery. Slavery is an abomination, to use a word favoured in the bible, although the law regarding the Sabbath not so mundane because to break it would mean you could be stoned to death.
Even if I was to accept, which I don't, that the biblical god did not put a stop to slavery because people could not cope with such a sudden change, why didn't he, when he laid down instructions on having slaves, tell the people not to beat their slaves and why did he give the slave owners a way to escape punishment if one of their slaves died as a result of a beating? Why did he not tell them not to take ownership of a slaves children and not to tag the ears of the slaves like a farmer tags his animals in order to show ownership?
It strikes me that the biblical god is more concerned about his own ego by ensuring that he is worshipped in a way that he finds pleasing, hence the slaughter of people that worship other gods or who don't worship him to his liking.
The bible reports the biblical god as saying that certain things were an abomination to him. It would appear that slavery wasn't one of those things.
The Bible treats slavery as a practice within the context of its time, naturally there must be laws on how to treat your slaves, which is a very different thing from banning slavery. People in the United States in the 1800s about 200 years ago could barely cope with abolishing slavery as a long process, you think people would cope with a direct abolishment to slavery in the Bronze Age? There’s only specific cases of people being slaughtered for worshipping other gods and it’s not usually solely for just worshipping another god. I’d also like to point out Paul didn’t think slavery was a good thing:

Every one should remain in the state in which he was called. Were you a slave when called? Never mind. But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity. For he who was called in the Lord as a slave is a freedman of the Lord. Likewise he who was free when called is a slave of Christ. You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men. So, brethren, in whatever state each was called, there let him remain with God (1 Cor. 7:20-24).
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Not David
Upvote 0

timewerx

the village i--o--t--
Aug 31, 2012
15,202
5,877
✟296,775.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Likewise he who was free when called is a slave of Christ.

The Christ doesn't call His disciples slaves, not even servants. He simply calls them friends - John 15:15. And you weren't bought at a price. All you need to do is believe and belief doesn't make you in debt. It's free.

Just another contradiction than only brings further doubt if Paul was ever an apostle.

It's no coincidence that the false doctrines and false prophets Jesus warned against, would tolerate slavery which includes the doctrines of the Old Testament.
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,172
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,592.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What if your neighbor keeps slaves?

Do you mean since the New Covenant? Paul to help us begin to see the answer already in the very short (1 page) letter to Philemon, and we have to generalize it, with the universal command in Matthew 7:12. Paul helps us see how to speak to a brother that is not yet doing as he ought to do back in a time when various forms of slavery were common.

In a time like that.

But, since today we live in a nation where slavery in obvious forms is outlawed...(it's not necessarily outlawed in all the less obvious forms, because a law unenforced is effectively moot).

Today, for an American holding a slave, I'd seek to bring the Good News to them, that they might be converted, and live (instead of going to the 2nd death).
Regardless of whether they think they already heard, not assuming they have even if they say they have. A converted Christian begins to follow Christ, not the world. Over time, they become less and less worldly, and do more as He said.
 
Upvote 0

Barney2.0

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Dec 1, 2017
6,003
2,336
Los Angeles
✟451,221.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The Christ doesn't call His disciples slaves, not even servants. He simply calls them friends - John 15:15. And you weren't bought at a price. All you need to do is believe and belief doesn't make you in debt. It's free.

Just another contradiction than only brings further doubt if Paul was ever an apostle.

It's no coincidence that the false doctrines and false prophets Jesus warned against, would tolerate slavery which includes the doctrines of the Old Testament.
Jesus never called his disciples disciples either. Paul was an apostle according to his acceptance by the apostles who knew Jesus.
 
Upvote 0

Not David

I'm back!
Apr 6, 2018
7,356
5,235
25
USA
✟231,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Actually, I agree. This is why you see an evolving standard of morality on display in the Bible (and everywhere else) rather than a fixed standard.
Well, the Israelites of the time of Moses and the Kings had a different idea of what God was supposed to be like even being idolaters most of the time. The captivity in Babylon helped the Jews to change that view.
 
Upvote 0

Brother Billy

Active Member
Sep 30, 2018
174
33
Sydney
✟4,448.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
If God didn’t know slavery was repugnant then slavery wouldn’t have ended globally. The Biblical God couldn’t declare slavery as wrong under punishment of death regarding the context of the time of revelation as to many people just wouldn’t be able to cope that slavery would now be banned. Minor cultural things can be changed by God, however God can’t declare something like slavery which had a big effect on the lives of Israelites as repugnant as it would just be to big a change for that specific time. Are you seriously comparing the Israelite dietary laws and the Sabbath law to something as big as slavery?

Why couldn't the Israelite's cope if slavery was banned? Look at all the instances throughout history and the world where slavery was once an integral part of society, but where slavery was subsequently banned. In all cases, people managed to work through it and became stronger and more prosperous in the long term as a result.

If pagan nations (Like the Maurya Empire in India during 3rd century BC) recognized how evil slavery was and put a stop to it, why couldn't the Israelites (who had the god of the universe guiding them) do the same?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Brother Billy

Active Member
Sep 30, 2018
174
33
Sydney
✟4,448.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
Which is exactly how I perceive 'christian slavery,' more of an employer-employee relationship.

I disagree. Employers don't own their employees as permanent property which they can pass down to their heirs as inheritance. Employers don't force their employees to work for them. When an employee has a child, that child doesn't automatically become an employee.
 
Upvote 0

Brother Billy

Active Member
Sep 30, 2018
174
33
Sydney
✟4,448.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
I was merely explaining historically how slavery arose and how it ended - it was economics, not moral philosophy. I'm not saying that God had the aim of abolishing slavery. His aim was much higher than that - the redemption of mankind from sin. Toward that end He condescended to work with people where they were.



Slavery did not exist in antiquity because people were morally backward. It existed because they were economically backward. Athens may have abolished debt slavery, but what propped up ancient Athens economically were the mines Laurion, where slaves provided the muscle power. Abolishing the slave trade is not the same thing as abolishing slavery itself. China has abolished and reinstated slavery an number of times in history, most recently abolishing it 1910. This was possible because like Europe, China had developed an economic system that was more efficient than slavery, indeed similar to medieval European feudalism, not because slavery was regarded as immoral.

Why would a benevolent god tolerate one of the most evil practices ever created, because of economics? Are you saying he placed money above morals?
 
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

Brother Billy

Active Member
Sep 30, 2018
174
33
Sydney
✟4,448.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
"If God desired the end of slavery, he could just end slavery..."
Think carefully on it, since slavery is against the Golden Rule, Matthew 7:12, then the question in general form really is this one:
"If God desired the end of evil actions, he could just end evil actions...."

The Golden Rule was not a pronouncement against slavery! If it was, why wasn’t it obvious to the large swaths of “Founded as a Christian Nation” America for over 200 years?

Also Mathew 7:12 is just Jesus repeating Leviticus 19:11-18. Jesus’ audience, well-versed in their scriptures, would have known that he was quoting from Leviticus, one of the “Five Books of Moses.” They would also have known that these books include Deuteronomy, which commands Israel to invade and enslave distant cities, and Exodus, which says that slaves are just “property” and may be beaten so severely that they can’t even get up for just shy of two days. Unless we are prepared to say that one book of the Pentateuch contradicts another, it’s hard to see how the Golden Rule in Leviticus overrides the slavery passages Deuteronomy and Exodus — at least not for Jesus’ audience.

For that matter, Leviticus itself grants Israel permission to buy foreign slaves. Would Jesus’ audience have thought Leviticus could contradict itself? Would Jesus? Would today’s Bible-believing Christians? I think not.

So, in the minds of Jesus’ audience, and possibly for Jesus himself, it would have been far from obvious that the Golden Rule outlawed slavery. In their minds, the two concepts had coexisted in the scriptures, presumably without contradiction, for centuries.

If Jesus had intended his statement of Leviticus 19:18 to override the slavery commands and regulations also found in the Five Books of Moses, surely he would have made that more obvious to an audience for whom those books were a central feature of spiritual life.

But in fact, Jesus’ explicit statements about the Hebrew scriptures were overwhelmingly supportive, as when he said, “…anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands [of the Law] and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:19).

At a minimum, we can say that if Jesus meant the Golden Rule as a command to abolish slavery, then millions of slaves in the next 1800 years would wish he had made his intent far more obvious.

Servitude gets more and more regulated, even to the extent servants can simply end an obligation at any moment, without any fear, which is close to making the servitude just mere employment. And for outright slaves, more and more regulation, that increasingly constricts.

Until....

"he could make clear in the Bible that he disapproves and that we should stop it (he never did). "
Ah, you might want to be more skeptical of your own knowledge on this one (in general this is good advice for every person, all the time). For instance, not only the many regulations that limit and control that non-indentured slavery in the OT, but also the revolutionary changes becoming evident in the NT, not just Philemon, itself radical (making the servant not only equal, but radically more equal than modern Americans often are in reality), but the real implication of putting Philemon together with Matthew 7:12, where the only qualifier is flatly "In everything" meaning without any exceptions at all, ever....is too radical for the average American today, but it's the command to Christians.

Experience teaches us when we think at some point some broad unqualified characterization such as yours (seeming so reasonable...), it's always a very good moment to stop and at wonder: "hmmm...I wonder if I got that right or might there be other regulations/laws/instructions that radially alter the situation to be sharply unlike my characterization?"

How is slavery in the bible more regulated than the slavery that existed in America? Do you have any proof to back up your assertion? Every US state had laws that protected slaves from being abused, see below:

Southern slave codes made willful killing of a slave illegal in most cases. For example, in 1791, the North Carolina legislature made the willful killing of a slave murder unless it was done who was resisting or under moderate correction. Historian Lawrence M. Friedman wrote: "Ten Southern codes made it a crime to mistreat a slave.... Under the Louisiana Civil Code of 1825 (art. 192), if a master was "convicted of cruel treatment," the judge could order the sale of the mistreated slave, presumably to a better master."
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Samaritan Woman

Active Member
Sep 2, 2013
353
261
Midwest
✟66,356.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
If pagan nations (Like the Maurya Empire in India during 3rd century BC) recognized how evil slavery was and put a stop to it, why couldn't the Israelites (who had the god of the universe guiding them) do the same?

I went to this Wikipedia article and did a word search for "slavery", "slaves", and "slave" within the document, none of which showed up as being present. Not only that, but the article was flagged for potentially unreliable and unclear sources with insufficient inline citations.

However, I did do various searches on slavery in ancient India but with little success as there seems to be a dearth of in-depth information; cited sources are scanty at best. What I did find confirmed my knowledge regarding the caste system that has long existed in India along with its negative and oppressive effects on the lowest caste. In fact, one page I found said that to be on the lowest "rung" was almost worse than slavery...or at least tantamount to it. Considering that the country's caste system is not in dispute, I honestly don't see how it can be held up as a pillar of morality with regard to this issue.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Not David
Upvote 0

Brother Billy

Active Member
Sep 30, 2018
174
33
Sydney
✟4,448.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
I went to this Wikipedia article and did a word search for "slavery", "slaves", and "slave" within the document, none of which showed up as being present. Not only that, but the article was flagged for potentially unreliable and unclear sources with insufficient inline citations.

However, I did do various searches on slavery in ancient India but with little success as there seems to be a dearth of in-depth information; cited sources are scanty at best. What I did find confirmed my knowledge regarding the caste system that has long existed in India along with its negative and oppressive effects on the lowest caste. In fact, one page I found said that to be on the lowest "rung" was almost worse than slavery...or at least tantamount to it. Considering that the country's caste system is not in dispute, I honestly don't see how it can be held up as a pillar of morality with regard to this issue.

This was the guy who banned slavery:
Who was Emperor Ashoka?
 
Upvote 0

Barney2.0

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Dec 1, 2017
6,003
2,336
Los Angeles
✟451,221.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Why couldn't the Israelite's cope if slavery was banned? Look at all the instances throughout history and the world where slavery was once an integral part of society, but where slavery was subsequently banned. In all cases, people managed to work through it and became stronger and more prosperous in the long term as a result.

If pagan nations (Like the Maurya Empire in India during 3rd century BC) recognized how evil slavery was and put a stop to it, why couldn't the Israelites (who had the god of the universe guiding them) do the same?
Nothing in there about the Mauryan empire banning slavery. If your talking about the rules on Dasas, then I’d just point out that the Dasas were servants not slaves. Slavery itself was never banned in the pagan Mauryan empire, infact India still has trouble with slavery in some parts. Took a while to cope didn’t it?
 
Upvote 0

Barney2.0

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Dec 1, 2017
6,003
2,336
Los Angeles
✟451,221.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
This was the guy who banned slavery:
Who was Emperor Ashoka?
Besides his edicts, there has been no credible biography of Emperor Ashoka’s life, while we know he existed that’s about as far as it gets, most scholars think the majority of parts written about his life are mere myths.
 
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

Barney2.0

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Dec 1, 2017
6,003
2,336
Los Angeles
✟451,221.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Why would a benevolent god tolerate one of the most evil practices ever created, because of economics? Are you saying he placed money above morals?
Practically every faith based religion has tolerated slavery for a long degree of time. Some religions like Islam don’t ever want to abolish slavery. And religions Zoroastrianism permitted slavery at one point, yet I never saw an Athiests and skeptics point fingers at Ahura Mazda as being an evil and non benevolent god for permitting slavery. It just seems to work with the Abrahamic God these days, doesn’t it?
 
Upvote 0

Par5

Well-Known Member
Nov 5, 2017
1,013
653
78
LONDONDERRY
✟69,175.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Practically every faith based religion has tolerated slavery for a long degree of time. Some religions like Islam don’t ever want to abolish slavery. And religions Zoroastrianism permitted slavery at one point, yet I never saw an Athiests and skeptics point fingers at Ahura Mazda as being an evil and non benevolent god for permitting slavery. It just seems to work with the Abrahamic God these days, doesn’t it?
Slavery is wrong no matter who permits it. This is the CF so we are discussing the actions of the biblical god. It's not a case of anyone saying that the god of the bible was the only god that condoned slavery, but if it makes you feel better Ahura Mazda, whoever he was, was every bit as wrong in permitting slavery.
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,172
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,592.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The Golden Rule was not a pronouncement against slavery! If it was, why wasn’t it obvious to the large swaths of “Founded as a Christian Nation” America for over 200 years?

Would you like to learn more on that?


Slavery has existed, in one form or another, throughout the whole of human history. So, too, have movements to free large or distinct groups of slaves. However, abolitionism should be distinguished from efforts to help a particular group of slaves, or to restrict one practice, such as the slave trade.

Drescher (2009) provides a model for the history of the abolition of slavery, emphasizing its origins in Western Europe. Around the year 1500, slavery had virtually died out in Western Europe, but was a normal phenomenon practically everywhere else. [What religion was influential locally, in domestic, local life in Western Europe in 1500?] The imperial powers – the British, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, and Belgian empires, and a few others – built worldwide empires based primarily on plantation agriculture using slaves imported from Africa. However, the powers took care to minimize the presence of slavery in their homelands. ...
The continuing profitability of slave-based plantations and the threats of race war slowed the development of abolition movements during the first half of the 19th century. These movements were strongest in Britain, and after 1840 in the United States, in both instances they were based on evangelical religious enthusiasm that said that owning a slave was a sin, and stressed the horrible impact on the slaves themselves.
...
History of slavery - Wikipedia

Did that help?

I felt I should stop here, because why get lost in the weeds if your beginning idea is already non-factual?


But this was something we should answer though:

"Also Mathew 7:12 is just Jesus repeating Leviticus 19:11-18."

No, not if you read.

If you read you see the words "In everything", which is not the same as 'only for these certain things' or some other limited set of situations.

"In everything" means always, everywhere, in all things. That's a vast extension past specific laws.

Have you read all in this post?
 
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

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,403
15,550
Colorado
✟427,815.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Do you mean since the New Covenant? Paul to help us begin to see the answer already in the very short (1 page) letter to Philemon, and we have to generalize it, with the universal command in Matthew 7:12. Paul helps us see how to speak to a brother that is not yet doing as he ought to do back in a time when various forms of slavery were common.

In a time like that.

But, since today we live in a nation where slavery in obvious forms is outlawed...(it's not necessarily outlawed in all the less obvious forms, because a law unenforced is effectively moot).

Today, for an American holding a slave, I'd seek to bring the Good News to them, that they might be converted, and live (instead of going to the 2nd death).
Regardless of whether they think they already heard, not assuming they have even if they say they have. A converted Christian begins to follow Christ, not the world. Over time, they become less and less worldly, and do more as He said.
My point was that slaves have not been traditionally given "neighbor" status. This is why, almost 2 millennia after Jesus commanded "love thy neighbor", the Bible loving southern US culture could cling to a horrific slave system.

If your material interest and cultural preservation make it difficult to 'love your neighbor', then simply redefine "neighbor", or even "human".
 
Upvote 0