Brother Billy

Active Member
Sep 30, 2018
174
33
Sydney
✟4,448.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
No, that's not what I'm saying. (See, I'm going to have to lay this out again, aren't I?) :rolleyes: Let's see if I can be more concise and to the point.

Slavery in the Old Testament context (i.e. the B.C. context), and as administered by the Israelites during their times, is implicative of "just desserts" upon those who disregard God's Will and Commandments. They didn't have prisons, they had slavery. So, in the O.T., we see that everyone, even the Israelites were subject to slavery if they disobeyed God. This is part of the principles behind why, say, Samson was enslaved by the Philistines; it's also part of the reason the Israelites themselves were decimated by Nebuchadnezzar, with the surviving remnants of the Israelite population then hauled off to Babylon for 70 years.

I love "concise and to the point"! :clap:

If slaves were acquired during war as described in Deuteronomy 20:10-18 for punishment, it seems unjust that God would judge a whole nation by the actions of a group of individuals within that nation, even if that group constitutes the majority of the nation. At the very least, there would have been young innocent children and unborn babies who did not deserve to be enslaved. God, being omnipotent, could easily have made every wicked individual drop down dead if he wanted while sparing the innocent ones. However he ordered these innocents to be punished as well. He did this multiple times throughout the Old Testament.

Regardless of the above, slaves weren't only acquired during war. Leviticus 25:44-46 says non-Hebrew slaves could be purchased from non-Hebrews who lived among the Hebrews themselves or from non-Hebrew nations (probably during peacetime). Slaves could also be obtained if a female slave gave birth since her children automatically became slaves as well. How are these related to punishing wicked nations/people?

Today's slavery is a different case and we're now in a different world (i.e. in the A.D. context) with a different set of post-Christian social milieus. And the slavery of the Atlantic slave trade was more or less what I'd call "White Sin," which had more to do with a big Economic Power Trip on the part of Muslims, followed by greedy Europeans, than it does with any apparent injunctions supporting slavery which seem to reside in the pages of the O.T.

How was slavery in America different from slavery in biblical times?

Hebrews were allowed to keep fellow Hebrews as indentured servants (voluntary and temporary - primary motive to provide economic relief), but not as chattel slaves. Hebrews were allowed to buy and keep non-Hebrews as chattel slaves (permanent property, involuntary and harsher than indentured servitude - primary motivation was economic gain). Non-Hebrews generally had a different culture, language and religion to the Hebrews. In both cases, there were laws that protected slaves from abuse. However we dont know to what extend these laws were enforced (Do you have any info in this regard)? Exodus 21:16 says Hebrews were not allowed to kidnap and enslave other people, however NET Bible Online says this only applied to fellow Hebrews i.e. they could still kidnap non-Hebrews.

In the same way, Europeans were allowed to keep fellow Europeans as indentured servants (voluntary and temporary - primary motive to provide economic relief), but not as chattel slaves. Europeans were allowed to buy and keep non-Europeans (mainly Africans) as chattel slaves (permanent property, involuntary and harsher than indentured servitude - primary motivation was economic gain). Non-Europeans generally had a different culture, language and religion to the Europeans. In both cases, there were laws that protected slaves from abuse. However we also know that these laws were not always enforced and that slaves were sometimes abused. As I stated before, the vast majority of African slaves were purchased from other Africans - only a tiny minority were kidnapped by Europeans themselves.

You see, BEFORE any one of us really has the privilege [despite our present freedom to tell ourselves otherwise] of making an ethical evaluation about the Old Testament institution of slavery, we HAVE to hermeneutically account for and understand the full context of what we're actually finding and what WE THINK we're reading in those archaic O.T. pages. Otherwise, we're guilty of misappropriating the material and prone to making brash judgements about things we know not which, and all we'll have to excuse ourselves by is to say, "...well, we don't like it because we think it's the same ol' thing we had to deal with during the last several hundreds years!" Which wouldn't really be true.

I mean, if we're going to affirm the nastiness of slavery in the O.T., we HAVE to be willing to ALSO affirm such odd-ball contexts such as, "...and there were Giants in the land in those days," or "You Israelites are stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart, so don't think you're any better than those that God is displacing and eradicating before you" etc., etc. etc.?

Are you saying that God thought slavery was acceptable in the social context of ancient Israel? What was that context?

Or was God constrained by the social conditions of the time? God didn’t feel bound by the status quo when he introduced the Ten Commandments. In Numbers 15:32-6, God made it a capital crime to pick up sticks on the Sabbath. The sudden inconvenience of this didn’t seem to bother God?

I've already covered some of this elsewhere here on CF.

Let's just say, for now, that you're only seeing half, maybe even only a third of, the total picture.

Could you provide a link?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟143,395.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Slavery in the Old Testament context (i.e. the B.C. context), and as administered by the Israelites during their times, is implicative of "just desserts" upon those who disregard God's Will and Commandments. They didn't have prisons, they had slavery. So, in the O.T., we see that everyone, even the Israelites were subject to slavery if they disobeyed God. This is part of the principles behind why, say, Samson was enslaved by the Philistines; it's also part of the reason the Israelites themselves were decimated by Nebuchadnezzar, with the surviving remnants of the Israelite population then hauled off to Babylon for 70 years.

"Today's" slavery is a different case and we're now in a different world (i.e. in the A.D. context) with a different set of post-Christian social milieus. And the slavery of the Atlantic slave trade was more or less what I'd call "White Sin," which had more to do with a big Economic and Religious Power Trip on the part of Muslims, followed by greedy Europeans who were only too happy to follow suite, than it does with any apparent injunctions supporting slavery which seem to reside in the pages of the O.T.


Wow.... just.... wow.
Now I've seen it all.

Slavery of the atlantic slave trade is the fault of muslims. Awesome.
I must admit, I didn't hear that excuse before by an apologist.

You see, BEFORE any one of us really has the privilege [despite our present freedom to tell ourselves otherwise] of making an ethical evaluation about the Old Testament institution of slavery, we HAVE to hermeneutically account for and understand the full context of what we're actually finding and what WE THINK we're reading in those archaic O.T. pages. Otherwise, we're guilty of misappropriating the material and prone to making brash judgements about things we know not which, and all we'll have to excuse ourselves by is to say, "...well, we don't like it because we think it's the same ol' thing we had to deal with during the last several hundreds years!" Which wouldn't really be true.

Not sure if you noticed, but the only people here who are comparing OT slavery with slavery of the past few hundreds years, are you guys........

We... we are just talking about slavery full stop. The concept of "owning" another human being as personal property.

Not saying they are different or the same. I'll leave that in the middle. Just saying that it's usually the theist who draws that card, while the atheist is just pointing to the fact that slavery was explicitly allowed in the OT (and never explicitly forbidden throughout the entire bible).

I mean, if we're going to affirm the nastiness of slavery in the O.T., we HAVE to be willing to ALSO affirm such odd-ball contexts such as, "...and there were Giants in the land in those days," or "You Israelites are stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart, so don't think you're any better than those that God is displacing and eradicating before you" etc., etc. etc.?

I've already covered some of this elsewhere here on CF.

Let's just say, for now, that you're only seeing half, maybe even only a third of, the total picture.

I'ld argue that I don't require the whole picture. Because as I said so many times already, there is no circumstance in which I consider things like slavery, genocide or infanticide to being morally acceptable. At all.

And as I said several times already also, I understand we can't judge primitive societies, who didn't know better, by today's standards.


But I do get to judge an all-knowing deity who condones, allows, regulates such practices, because such a deity WOULD know better!
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,124
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,860.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Wow.... just.... wow.
Now I've seen it all.

Slavery of the atlantic slave trade is the fault of muslims. Awesome.
I must admit, I didn't hear that excuse before by an apologist.
That's because not all apologists actually do additional historical, social research outside their fixations upon Kalam Cosmological type arguments and on all of that other, more common type of apologetics. As for my 'thesis,' I'm not pulling this out of my behind, DogmaHunter. No, it comes from doing basic research in history. (I remember telling my dad as a kid in high school, "Dad, why in the world do they make us read and study any of this history stuff? We'll never use it for anything!" And look now. Here I am-----using it for something. Who would have guessed? :doh:)

Not sure if you noticed, but the only people here who are comparing OT slavery with slavery of the past few hundreds years, are you guys........

We... we are just talking about slavery full stop. The concept of "owning" another human being as personal property.
Right. And I already 'explained' why YOU, and people with your mind set, tend to do so. It's called Worldview brainwashing. But that part wouldn't be your fault, so I probably can't blame you for the way in which you presently view things.

I'ld argue that I don't require the whole picture. Because as I said so many times already, there is no circumstance in which I consider things like slavery, genocide or infanticide to being morally acceptable. At all.
Do you believe that in the Ancient Jewish world, Giants and Canaanites who were armed and fortified to the hilt, existed? No? If not, then why even be concerned about what the Bible says about slavery?

And as I said several times already also, I understand we can't judge primitive societies, who didn't know better, by today's standards.


But I do get to judge an all-knowing deity who condones, allows, regulates such practices, because such a deity WOULD know better!
You only get to judge Him by your own uncertain worldview....................epistemologically, ontologically, axiologically speaking, that is. ;)
 
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
You keep saying that God meant to abolish slavery at some point. When exactly was this point?

I'll try to keep it on one (significant) question at a time, as we agreed previously. :)

When exactly did God effectively outlaw slavery?

(Outlawing slavery isn't the same as actually reducing it, which requires to change hearts, which God has worked on humanity extensively to do. But here I'll answer about the promulgated laws that constitute the end of slavery being ok by God's law
(though it's not yet the actual end of slavery, since people won't follow the law unless their hearts are truly changed).

So, God both:
A) made a progression of laws
B) but more crucially has worked to change our hearts so that we follow those laws instead of merely putting them aside and going around them

But you want to know about just A) alone.

Answer: A progression of laws -- Baby Steps, just like current American law -- increasingly constricting and controlling slavery, over time, until finally we arrive at the end of room for slavery here:

Matthew ch7, v12 and the very short letter to Philemon Philemon 1 NIV, which was the totally inevitable outcome of Matthew ch7, v12 as worded --
Matthew 7:12 In everything, then, do to others as you would have them do to you. For this is the essence of the Law and the prophets.

Because "in everything" makes this go past merely some of the time, or only for some situations, and changes it instead to all of the time in every situation.

Of course, this fantastically high standard of law in Matthew 7 isn't followed by people consistently unless their hearts are truly changed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟143,395.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
That's because not all apologists actually do additional historical, social research outside their fixations upon Kalam Cosmological type arguments and on all of that other, more common type of apologetics. As for my 'thesis,' I'm not pulling this out of my behind, DogmaHunter. No, it comes from doing basic research in history. (I remember telling my dad as a kid in high school, "Dad, why in the world do they make us read and study any of this history stuff? We'll never use it for anything!" And look now. Here I am-----using it for something. Who would have guessed? :doh:)

Then surely you are also aware of how the slave trade the past few hundreds years was justified with bible passages.

Right. And I already 'explained' why YOU, and people with your mind set, tend to do so. It's called Worldview brainwashing. But that part wouldn't be your fault, so I probably can't blame you for the way in which you presently view things.

Yes, yes, I am so brainwashed. Wherever did I get the idea that treating human beings as personal property is a bad thing....

Do you believe that in the Ancient Jewish world, Giants and Canaanites who were armed and fortified to the hilt, existed? No? If not, then why even be concerned about what the Bible says about slavery?

Because millions of my fellow earthly citizens consider it to be the source of their morality. And even try to tell me that I have no moral foundation without it.

You only get to judge Him by your own uncertain worldview....................epistemologically, ontologically, axiologically speaking, that is. ;)

Until our brains can accomodate for Borg-like distributed computing, I have no other choice.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Brother Billy
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
I disagree that underpaying someone is equivalent to slavery. Slavery is owning another person as property.

Do you think there was any difference between slavery in the Bible and slavery in the America between the 17th-19th centuries? Before you answer, please read:
Yes, Biblical Slavery Was the Same as American Slavery

Ok. To me modern American forced sex trafficking is very definitely and clearly a form of slavery, and I think 80-99% of people would agree if asked. But let's move to your more key question...


You ask: "Do you think there was any difference between slavery in the Bible and slavery in the America between the 17th-19th centuries?"

Yes.

Early slave law in the Bible, about 3,500 years ago:

20“Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result

Were American slave owners normally punished if they beat one of their slaves to death?


26 “An owner who hits a male or female slave in the eye and destroys it must let the slave go free to compensate for the eye. 27 And an owner who knocks out the tooth of a male or female slave must let the slave go free to compensate for the tooth.

Were American slave owners required by law to let a slave have freedom if they knocked out a tooth?



(Not part of this answer -- By chance I noticed also, on another topic, something superior to many current American state laws: "2“If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; 3 but if it happens after sunrise, the defender is guilty of bloodshed." Interesting, eh?)

Captives from defeated cities in war ---
Instead of women of defeated cities left to starve, they could become wives in Israel, with all the rights of wives (One person (not a virgin either) we know some details of: Rahab, part of the lineage to King David), and if that did not work out, they were then freed, by law from God, and then would be a free person having all the rights of a free person, in Israel, which included to treat resident aliens with love and respect.

10 When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her."

What would it mean to be freed this way?

Exodus 22:21 You must not exploit or oppress a foreign resident, for you yourselves were foreigners in the land of Egypt.
Leviticus 19:34 You must treat the foreigner living among you as native-born and love him as yourself, for you were foreigners in the land of Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

Did American slaves owners who didn't want to be married to slaves they slept with have to free those slaves?

I'm actually asking, since you raised this question, and I'd like you to answer.
 
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

Let's consider precisely what is genocide --
  1. the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.
the definition of genocide

When the allies fire bombed Dresden, killing men women and children, by intent, was that 'genocide'?

Tokyo? -- "The Bombing of Tokyo (東京大空襲 Tōkyōdaikūshū) often refers to a series of firebombing air raids by the United States Army Air Forcesduring the Pacific campaigns of World War II. Operation Meetinghouse, which was conducted on the night of 9–10 March 1945, is regarded as the single most destructive bombing raid in human history.[1] 16 square miles (41 km2) of central Tokyo were destroyed, leaving an estimated 100,000 civilians dead and over 1 million homeless."
Bombing of Tokyo - Wikipedia

Was that genocide?

How about Hiroshima? Did you know America used up the available refined nuclear bomb making enriched Uranium and Plutonium on hand for the 2 bombs, and after Nagasaki, we could not have quickly dropped another one? The 2 bombs were made to be as big as possible at that time.

But, to me and most people, 'genocide' is trying to kill all the members of an ethnic or racial group from a region because of their race or ethnicity.

That's not the same as mass deaths in wars motivated for other reasons. For instance, a war to take land. Or a nuclear bomb meant to force a quicker end to a war, even though it will kill men, women and children in large mass (potentially even 100% of a small city became possible in the 1950s).

What does genocide mean to most people?

I think of the Nazis trying to actually round up and kill all of the Jews in many Europeans countries. The actual aim was to kill all the Jews possible from many nations, because they were Jews. Not in order to take land, etc.

When Israel was directed to entirely destroy certain cities, the 2 reasons given in the text were to take the land, and 2nd to entirely end the evil of the cities, especially the child sacrifices in fires (Deu 12:29-31).

The goal was not racial nor ethnic. Alien captives could become full wives. Rahab for instance is one famous example, who became an ancestor of the line of King David, of thus of both Mary and Joseph too.
 
Last edited:
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
And still no answer.

I can't guess what you want answered, but I'll be happy to repeat again anything I already said in the thread (possibly to someone else), or answer a new question from you, either way.

Will you answer whatever question on these topics I ask you?
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,124
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,860.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I love "concise and to the point"! :clap:
Billy, I'm glad you're an individual who can appreciate what I say despite my brevity... :rolleyes:

Could you provide a link?
While I'm cogitating over how to best respond to the rest of your post (#344), I'll provide you with a link that will take you to the first post I made--of many--in a thread I took part in not so long ago with another fairly new interlocutor here at CF. He had a similar concern about the Biblical conceptual grid regarding 'slavery.' If you want, I can try to catalogue all of the successive numbers of the posts I have there, but I'd rather only do this if you feel you'd really like to tackle all of the things that I've said there, particularly toward the last one third of those posts. For now, I'll just say that in that thread, my responses can be found scattered successively between posts #772 and #1081. Happy hunting!

Is Slavery Moral?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Tom 1

Optimistic sceptic
Supporter
Nov 13, 2017
12,212
12,526
Tarnaveni
✟818,769.00
Country
Romania
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Overview

The bible explicitly endorses two types of slavery....indentured servitude (for Hebrews) and chattel slavery (for non-Hebrews). With indentured servitude, a person voluntarily agreed to sell his labor to his master for a temporary period of time after which the servant would be granted some kind of remuneration. With chattel slavery (the type of slavery that existed in America during the 1800s), the slave was the permanent property of his master. Most Christians acknowledge that indentured servitude existed for Hebrews, so I won't discuss this. I want to concentrate on the slavery that applied to non-Hebrews (i.e. chattel slavery). Below I will show that the Hebrews got their chattel slaves by buying them or capturing them during war.

Obtaining slaves through purchase

Leviticus 25:44-46 says that the Hebrews can buy non-Hebrew slaves as permanent property. This is in contrast to Hebrew indentured servants who entered into a contract with their masters for a set period (7 years). Indentured servants couldn't be bequeathed as inheritance because they were not considered permanent property. Also, notice that this passage makes a distinction between the treatment of Hebrews servants who are not to be treated ruthlessly like non-Hebrews were.

Obtaining slaves through warfare

The second way chattel slaves could be obtained is by attacking foreign cities and enslaving the inhabitants. Deuteronomy 20:10-18 says that when the Hebrews attacked a non-Hebrew city they made an offer to the inhabitants:
(1) surrender and pay a tribute (i.e. they would be forced to work for the Hebrews) OR
(2) the men would be slaughtered and women/children and livestock taken as plunder.

In case (2), women and children are described as plunder, which is property that is (usually violently) acquired by the victor during a war. Here the Hebrews could march into a house of the conquered city and drag out any women and children and enslave them. These weren't combatants and posed little treat to the Hebrews, but they were of economic value.

Why is slavery wrong?

Today we recognize that slavery is immoral because slavery, by its very nature, is a violation of a person’s liberty. It reduces people into objects that can be owned. Some apologists claim that slaves were treated with kindness and not abused like black slaves in America were. Even if this was true, this makes no difference to the morality of owning another person as property - slavery was and will always be immoral. Other apologists argue that these laws are no longer in force. Again this is irrelevant. The fact is that there was a point in history where god thought that owning another person as property (chattel slavery) was okay.

My question is, if an omnipotent and benevolent god exists and he gave these laws to humans, why would he condone slavery? A benevolent god and a god that condoned slavery is a contradiction. Either the god of the bible exists, in which case he isn't benevolent or he doesn't exist.

Christian apologists respond to the above


Below is an excellent video which counters many of the objections that apologists have on this subject:


Below, I've listed a few of the common objections that people have made under this thread, together with my response.

Claim 1: Exodus 21:16 bans the practice of slavery

No it doesn't. Exodus 21:16 says "Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper's possession." This verse is about kidnapping and says nothing about slave traders or slave holders in general. The main ways that Hebrews were legally allowed to acquire slaves were through purchase or inheritance (Leviticus 25:44-46) or warfare (Deuteronomy 20:10-18). Slaves could also be obtained if a female slave gave birth since her children automatically became slaves as well. Exodus 21:6 also provides a means by which a master could turn a Hebrew indentured servant into a permanent slave.

Claim 2: Deuteronomy 23:15-16 shows slavery was voluntary because a slave could leave if he was abused

This is not true. Deuteronomy 23:15-16 says: “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."

Take note of the underlined portion above. The law is telling Hebrews to allow slaves who have escaped their foreign masters in foreign lands to settle in one of their (Hebrew) towns.

Even if it did apply to all slaves, it just meant that Hebrew masters had to keep their slaves locked up if they thought that they might escape. It doesn't mean that slaves were free to leave when they chose.

Claim 3: Slavery in 17th-19th century America was unbiblical

No, slavery in the America was based on the Bible. See Yes, Biblical Slavery Was the Same as American Slavery and History of slavery in Massachusetts - Wikipedia.

Claim 4: Slavery in the Bible was more enlightened than that of 17th-19th century America

Even granting this point for the sake of argument, this fails to answer the simple question: is owning another human ever moral, or not? The relative kindness of a slave owner does not enter into the basic moral question of owning other humans as property.

Even if you thought that the morality of slavery is influenced by how well a slave is treated, what evidence is there that slaves were treated any better than in America? There were laws in the Bible that protected slaves from being abused:
  • Killing a slave merited punishment. (Ex 21:20)
  • Permanently injured slaves had to be set free (Ex 21:26-27)
  • Slaves who ran away from oppressive masters were effectively freed (Dt 23:15-16)
  • The law also gave slaves a day of rest every week (Ex 20:10, Dt 5:14).
However, the mere existence of the these laws doesn't mean that they were followed in practice. There were laws that protected American slaves from being mistreated too.
  • the 1739 South Carolina code limited the number of hours that slaves could be made to work and fined anyone who killed a slave £700.
  • The 1833 Alabama law code dictated, “Any person who shall maliciously dismember or deprive a slave of life, shall suffer such punishment as would be inflicted in case the like offense had been committed on a free white person.”
  • 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
  • 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
  • The South Carolina slave code was revised in 1739, with the following amendments:
    • No slave could work on Sunday, or work more than 15 hours per day in summer and 14 hours in winter.
    • The willful killing of a slave was fined £700, and "passion" killing £350.
Does this mean American slaves were not mistreated? What evidence is there that the Hebrews treated their slaves well? Regardless, as I pointed out above, the way slaves were treated makes no difference to the morality of owning other people as objects - it is always wrong.

Claim 5: God tolerated slavery just like he tolerated divorce, because of the "hardness of peoples hearts", he knew they wouldn't obey him

Do you really think that God wouldn't make a law if he thought that people might have difficulty following it? What about "Thou shalt not commit adultery" or "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s goods.” Not only have humans always had great difficulty in following these, these are minor in comparison with chattel slavery. Why the inconsistency?

A good moral teacher doesn't tell his followers that they can engage in immoral behavior if they find it difficult to refrain from it. He tells them what ideals they should aspire to. Where does God tell the Hebrews that slavery is wrong?

Claim 6: Christians brought an end to slavery in the US

Christians may have been responsible for ending slavery in the US, but remember virtually everyone identified as a Christian at the time. Also Christians on both sides of the slavery debate used the Bible to justify their views.

Many southern Christians felt that slavery, in one Baptist minister’s words, “stands as an institution of God.” Here are some common arguments made by Christians, who supported slavery at the time:
  • Abraham, the “father of faith,” and all the patriarchs held slaves without God’s disapproval (Genesis 21:9-10).
  • Canaan, Ham’s son, was made a slave to his brothers (Genesis 9:24-27).
  • The Ten Commandments mention slavery twice, showing God’s implicit acceptance of it (Exodus 20:10, 17).
  • Slavery was widespread throughout the Roman world, and yet Jesus never spoke against it.
  • The apostle Paul specifically commanded slaves to obey their masters (
    Ephesians 6:5-8).
  • Paul returned a runaway slave, Philemon, to his master (Philemon 12).

While there were also many Christians who opposed slavery, they picked and chose the verses that supported their cause and ignored or interpreted away the verses that didn't. In particular they ignored 1 Corinthians 7:17-24, which says "each person should live as a believer in whatever situation the Lord has assigned to them, just as God has called them." The fact that it also says "although if you can gain your freedom, do so" is more of an afterthought and of no real help to the slave. It effectively said: “if your master lets you go, then take your freedom”. I can imagine a slaves response to be "Gee, thanks for nothing!"

Also remember that although the Abolitionist Movement used religious arguments against slavery, there there were also many enlightened thinkers who condemned slavery on humanistic grounds. People realized that slavery was deeply immoral because:
  • It reduces people to objects that can be owned
  • Increases leads to a great deal of suffering
  • It exploits and degrades human beings
  • It violates basic human rights
  • It perpetuates the abuse of children

My view is that the Abolitionist Movement was successful in ending slavery, in spite of, and not because of Christianity or the Bible.

Claim 7: Jesus was against slavery

Jesus refers to slaves and their masters in his parables as if slavery was the natural order of the day. Slaves in the parable of the prodigal son perform routine work in the background of the estate (Luke 15:22, Luke 15:26). Other parables depict cruel treatment of slaves, such as the parable of the wicked tenants. Slaves are disposable: they suffer beatings and death at the hands of tenants (Matt 21:33-44, Mark 12:1-12, Luke 20:9-18). Other New Testament writers accepted violence against slaves as normal as seen in these parables (see Matt 18:23-35, Luke 19:11-27). If Jesus thought that "love thy neighbor" was inconsistent with keeping slaves as property, don't you think it is strange that he never spoke out against slavery or at the very least, told his followers that slavery was not ideal?

Claim 8: The Golden Rule effectively banned slavery

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 Matthew 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 don’t think so.

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.

Regardless of the above, 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.

Claim 9: Chattel slavery was God’s punishment against wicked nations

If slaves were acquired during war as described in Deuteronomy 20:10-18 for punishment, it seems bizarre that God would judge a whole nation by the actions of a group of individuals within that nation, even if that group constitutes the majority.

Regardless of the above, slaves weren't only acquired during war. Leviticus 25:44-46
Claim 10: God desired the end of slavery, but it had to be done gradually because of the social, cultural and economic dynamics at the time

Why would an omni-benevolent god tolerate one of the most evil practices ever created, because of economics or social customs? There are numerous examples

For whose social/cultural/economic benefit did God condone slavery for anyway? The slave-owners or the slaves themselves? What could be worse than being the property of another person, being forced to labor for no wages, being forced to stay with your master, seeing your wife and children treated as cattle, etc?


Slavery was the norm at the time (and for a long, long time afterwards) in every culture in the region that anything has been found out about, from Sumerian culture to the Roman Empire and beyond. Why was that? What viewpoint based in actual knowledge about the ancient world do you have on that? If you or I had been born at that time we would consider it a normal part of life, and our perspective on the whole issue would be entirely different. Displacing one point of history to another and calling it an argument displays nothing but profound ignorance of the history of civilisation. You appear to have no grasp of the shallowness of the outlook behind this post, I’d suggest spending a few months educating yourself on how how civilisations have developed over time, the stages involved, why progress moves in different ways and at different rates, how and why progress happens at all, in what ways one period of time differs to another, and so on, and so on. Following that you could look into what is meant by ‘inspiration’, the concept of free will, why the bible reflects the times it was written in. That would be a more valuable use of your time than parroting specious arguments based in shallow thinking, void of any knowledge or understanding, and it may lead you towards having some actual understanding of the world you live in.

A worthwhile argument, one that might provide some illumination or at least some basic understanding, would be contrasting the practice of slavery within the nation of Israel with the practices of contemporary nations.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
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

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,124
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,860.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
If slaves were acquired during war as described in Deuteronomy 20:10-18 for punishment, it seems unjust that God would judge a whole nation by the actions of a group of individuals within that nation, even if that group constitutes the majority of the nation. At the very least, there would have been young innocent children and unborn babies who did not deserve to be enslaved. God, being omnipotent, could easily have made every wicked individual drop down dead if he wanted while sparing the innocent ones. However he ordered these innocents to be punished as well. He did this multiple times throughout the Old Testament.
From the context in which we find this passage which you've arbitrarily chosen so as to make your point, it sounds to me as if the people who were being dominated or demolished must have perpetuated unnecessarily sinful cultures that abrogated their 'right' before God to propagate. And why would I say an awful thing like this? Well, because, if we're going to assess this passage in a robust way hermeneutically, then we need to be honest with the actual details, contexts, and inferences we find in the network of the Old Testament writing, particularly if it's in the Torah as a whole. So, looking at the first verse of Chapter 20, we find that the priests were to come before the armies of Israel and pare down the numbers and the strength of the armies before engaging in battle. This sounds kind of counter-intuitive, don't you think? Why would Israel attack another nation with weak or only a moderate number of infantrymen? Could it be that verse 4 has something to do with this reduction? I mean, how is Israel going to fight a battle in which they're more than likely to be outnumbered and outgunned?

So, this is the first thing I'll bring to your attention before we go onto deconstructing this passage you've lifted, and by which you're attempting to make a point, Billy.

(You see, this context might not make much difference to you, but it does play into the immediate context of the passage you've commandeered. So, to safeguard against more of your "cherry-picking," I'm bringing your attention to the immediate context---and we haven't even gotten to the extended context of the passage as it may be informed by not only other portions of the entire book of Deuternonomy, but also by the entire Torah.)

The main point here is that, if you're going to claim that the Bible "means" something by such and such set of verses and take it SERIOUSLY and thereby be seriously offended, then why don't you remain consistent and take SERIOUSLY ALL of these other verses too that give an overall context to the passage that you've chosen to cite? One would almost think that people have some kind of impression that they can just waltz into the Bible, pick out what they want at random or according to whatever point it is they'd like to make, and just run with it in a sporting show of incredulity (or even unearned credulity, I guess, if that person happens to be a Christian). But, I'm gong to assume better things about you than that Billy, 'cuz I know you wouldn't stoop to so low of an interpretive measure just to bring disrepute upon the Bible. No, you'd want to show that you were actually being even-handed and fair with the materials that you're handling. In fact, I'd bet that you'd actually want to apply full fledged academic Hermeneutics and Exegesis to the biblical passages under your scrutiny just so you could be SURE you weren't misrepresenting what is actually being described in those very passages. Am I right?

I have more to say on this first set of verses which you've chosen, but I'll let what I've said above sink in first just so you know how we're going to handle this issue---which would be in an academic fashion.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Brother Billy

Active Member
Sep 30, 2018
174
33
Sydney
✟4,448.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
Slavery was the norm at the time (and for a long, long time afterwards) in every culture in the region that anything has been found out about, from Sumerian culture to the Roman Empire and beyond. Why was that? What viewpoint based in actual knowledge about the ancient world do you have on that? If you or I had been born at that time we would consider it a normal part of life, and our perspective on the whole issue would be entirely different.

Displacing one point of history to another and calling it an argument displays nothing but profound ignorance of the history of civilisation. You appear to have no grasp of the shallowness of the outlook behind this post, I’d suggest spending a few months educating yourself on how how civilisations have developed over time, the stages involved, why progress moves in different ways and at different rates, how and why progress happens at all, in what ways one period of time differs to another, and so on, and so on. Following that you could look into what is meant by ‘inspiration’, the concept of free will, why the bible reflects the times it was written in. That would be a more valuable use of your time than parroting specious arguments based in shallow thinking, void of any knowledge or understanding, and it may lead you towards having some actual understanding of the world you live in.

I agree that peoples attitudes change over time and that what people find acceptable in one culture, might be consider abhorrent in another culture (e.g. gladiator fights in ancient Rome, foot-binding in ancient China). The same is true for slavery. Most of the ancient world saw nothing wrong with slavery.

However, my argument doesn't concern what people living at the time thought about slavery. Instead it concerns what the God of the Universe thought/thinks about slavery. I though most Christians believed that God was the source of objective morality? Isn't it objectively wrong to own another person as property?

You seem to be suggesting that God allowed the Hebrews to engage in slavery because it was part of their beliefs, customs, and practices? However, slavery was also part of the beliefs, customs and practices of the American south between the 17th and 19th centuries. If you find the latter unacceptable, why would you accept the former?

A good moral teacher doesn't tell his followers that they can engage in immoral behavior if they find it difficult to refrain from it. He tells them what ideals they should aspire to. Where does God tell the Hebrews that slavery is wrong?

A worthwhile argument, one that might provide some illumination or at least some basic understanding, would be contrasting the practice of slavery within the nation of Israel with the practices of contemporary nations.

Even if the Hebrew laws that governed slavery resulted in better treatment of slaves compared to other nations at the time , what difference would this make? If a murderer kills his victims in their sleep instead of butchering them with an axe while they're awake, does that make his actions any less wrong?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Tom 1

Optimistic sceptic
Supporter
Nov 13, 2017
12,212
12,526
Tarnaveni
✟818,769.00
Country
Romania
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I agree that peoples attitudes change over time and that what people find acceptable in one culture, might be consider abhorrent in another culture (e.g. gladiator fights in ancient Rome, foot-binding in ancient China). The same is true for slavery. Most of the ancient world saw nothing wrong with slavery.

However, my argument doesn't concern what people living at the time thought about slavery. Instead it concerns what the God of the Universe thought/thinks about slavery. I though most Christians believed that God was the source of objective morality? Isn't it objectively wrong to own another person as property?

People in the ancient world engaged in all types of behaviors that God condemned e.g. prostitution, murder, rape, incest, homosexuality, etc, yet God had no problem making these capital crimes. Why couldn't he do the same with one of the most evil practices ever created i.e. slavery?

You seem to be suggesting that God allowed slavery because it was part of their beliefs, customs, and practices? A good moral teacher doesn't tell his followers that they can engage in immoral behavior if they find it difficult to refrain from it. He tells them what ideals they should aspire to. Where does God tell the Hebrews that slavery is wrong?

The same applies, you’re simply skipping over the information that would qualify your opinion. Behind what you are saying is the idea that God=people, that God can simply ‘make’ people be this or that way, that he could alter in an instant everything that makes up human society at any given point in time. To arrive at a point where some of today’s societies could function without slavery took milenia. If you don’t agree with that then you need to look into it, I mean really look into it, there are far too many factors to go into in a few posts.
It’s important also to understand that the text of the bible is inextricably linked to the times in which it was written. To understand any of it you need to know about, and link, the two. The social structures, societal norms, and so on, and so on. There are real questions to be asked - basic questions about human behaviour - that can lead to some understanding, e.g why were early states and nations constantly at war? How much do modern nations really differ and why? Why did early civilisations not have any kind of social security system or organised refugee programs that might have made slavery less likely?
These ideas that God should have somehow accelerated human development to ‘make us’ in the past more as we are now are pretty pointless, just hollow virtue signalling. You could use your time and energy a lot more effectively by getting past the obvious and investigating the actual.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

Brother Billy

Active Member
Sep 30, 2018
174
33
Sydney
✟4,448.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
The same applies, you’re simply skipping over the information that would qualify your opinion. Behind what you are saying is the idea that God=people, that God can simply ‘make’ people be this or that way, that he could alter in an instant everything that makes up human society at any given point in time. To arrive at a point where some of today’s societies could function without slavery took milenia. If you don’t agree with that then you need to look into it, I mean really look into it, there are far to many factors to go into in a few posts.
It’s important also to understand that the text of the bible is inextricably linked to the times in which it was written. To understand any of it you need to know about, and link, the two. The social structures, societal norms, and so on, and so on. There are real questions to be asked - basic questions about human behaviour - that can lead to some understanding, e.g why were early states and nations constantly at war? How much do modern nations really differ and why? Why did early civilisations not have any kind of social security system or organised refugee programs that might have made slavery less likely?
These ideas that God should have somehow accelerated human development to ‘make us’ in the past more as we are now are pretty pointless, just hollow virtue signalling. You could use your time and energy a lot more effectively by getting past the obvious and investigating the actual.

Is God not omnipotent? If he can change one Pharoah's heart, surely he could have changed the hearts of all slaveowners? Failing that, he could have made it clear in the Bible that he disapproves and that we should stop it. Instead of that he tells the Hebrews that they can engage in slavery as long as they follow certain rules. Surely anyone hearing this would interpret this as God's implicit approval of slavery?

Why didn't Jesus make it clear that he disapproves of slavery? Jesus refers to slaves and their masters in his parables as if slavery was the natural order of the day. If Jesus thought that "love thy neighbor" was inconsistent with keeping slaves as property, don't you think it is strange that he never spoke out against slavery or at the very least, told his followers that slavery was not ideal?

Failing that, one of the epistle writers could have made it clear that he disapproves so the Bible could say at least something against slavery (no one ever did).

Slavery was part of the beliefs, customs and practices of the American south between the 17th and 19th centuries. Also slave labor was integral to the entire economy of the region. And yet humans were still able to abolish slavery. Why couldn't God and the ancient Hebrews have done the same?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Tom 1

Optimistic sceptic
Supporter
Nov 13, 2017
12,212
12,526
Tarnaveni
✟818,769.00
Country
Romania
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Slavery was also part of the beliefs, customs and practices of the American south between the 17th and 19th centuries. The entire economy revolved around slave labor. There was no social security system for blacks. And yet humans were still able to abolish slavery. Why couldn't God and the Hebrews do the same in ancient times?

Well, you are now asking a useful question, which is a good starting point if you want to understand this issue. First to deal with some basics - your moral thinking isn’t objective, or self generated, it’s simply the result of having been born into a modern western society, whose ideas of morality are deeply rooted in Judeo-Christian teachings, and modes of thinking and acting that have developed out of those. For an atheist’s view on that you could go with Bart Erhman. I’d suggest taking a long, deep, look at another society that has developed along other lines, influenced by different religious beliefs, or at those socieities that have tried to reinvent morality altogether. Why and in what ways do those societies differ from your own? In what ways, if you were born into a different society today where slavery is still practiced, might your own feelings about it differ? And, more directly addressing your question, why did it take so many millennia to get to a point where Western nations could throw off slavery?

I’d suggest developing a deeper understanding of what kind of community God is proposing in Deuteronomy (to use Deuteronomy as a shortcut for what is in other books also). Elements of the Deuteronomical ideal of a functioning society have split off into what is roughly the right and left of modern politics, i.e. accents on personal freedom vs societal obligation. Hebrew society was not set up on the principle of equality, but on the ideal that all people should have the freedom and opportunity to work and live according to their means, to support themselves through their own work and live dignified lives. Those with more were expected to provide a ‘bottom line’ for the poor, e.g. by leaving the scattered plants at the edges of a field of grain for the poor to gather. Without getting into too much detail - you can look into that yourself - the idea is of a society where the governing rules are a blend of personal and communal responsibility. It’s so different from our more fragmented ideas of how society should function today that it can’t effectively be judged through the same lens, to ‘get it’ you have to education yourself in biblical thinking. However, that is the theory; I assume you are aware that theories of civic behaviour don’t always comply with how people actually act. People from within and outside of that society fell into temporary slavery as the result of debt, war, other reasons I think you have listed already. Provisions for this shortfall between the ideal and the actual were built into the system because, well, they had to be. At the time, temporary slavery was the available alternative to begging or death by starvation (more or less the same thing). Why? Well to get that you’ll really have to get your head around why human society doesn’t achieve what might be thought of as a desired state overnight. You’re never going to get that without looking into these issues a lot more deeply. If you can come up with a convincing case that in any period you want from the ancient world an actual, viable, better alternative existed - something that takes all factors into account - then it would be interesting to hear it.

Other factors include the survival of God’s people. Take a look into the ups and downs of various peoples and civilisations in the ancient world. Some of them didn’t survive, others were assimilated. Without the survival of the Hebrew nation there would be no Western society, and hence no modern concept that slavery is wrong. What are the implications of that survival? What did it take for the Israelite nation to survive? What were the alternatives?

Finally really take the time to ask yourself; why does human society take time to evolve? What is different between the US in modern times and a nation state in say 1000BC? What is different about the context in which those two exist?
A potted history of human history from a biblical perspective goes something like this:

There is some ideal state, humans are vegetarian and function as stewards of the planet.
There is a ‘fall’, followed by a period of degeneration into a state of total degradation, every man for himself, each taking whatever he or she wants
God gets sick of this and brings about some catastrophic event
Life continues and God decides that he will simply have to make the best of things. He picks out one man to begin a new nation that he hopes will rise above the rest and become a beacon to the world.
Thus begins the process of temporarily replacing the ‘ideal’ with the ‘real’, holding on to those essential functions of behaviour that make the eventual reattainment of the ideal a distant but possible aim - a long, slow, painful, difficult process.

This history is told by turns allegorically and in the dirty business of the everyday struggle of life. But it’s still history - a process - without getting that you can’t even understand why you are asking your question in the first place.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
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
Well, you are now asking a useful question, which is a good starting point if you want to understand this issue. First to deal with some basics - your moral thinking isn’t objective, or self generated, it’s simply the result of having been born into a modern western society, whose ideas of morality are deeply rooted in Judeo-Christian teachings, and modes of thinking and acting that have developed out of those. For an atheist’s view on that you could go with Bart Erhman. I’d suggest taking a long, deep, look at another society that has developed along other lines, influenced by different religious beliefs, or at those socieities that have tried to reinvent morality altogether. Why and in what ways do those societies differ from your own? In what ways, if you were born into a different society today where slavery is still practiced, might your own feelings about it differ? And, more directly addressing your question, why did it take so many millennia to get to a point where Western nations could throw off slavery?

There are many factors which shaped the morals of modern western society, and I agree that it has been heavily influenced by Judaeo-Christian teachings. However the Bible contains both good and evil teachings, and it is morally inconsistent. People have used the Bible to justify both good and evil actions throughout history.

Modern Christians have used and built upon the good parts (e.g. the Golden Rule, the Sermon on the Mount, etc) and either re-interpreted away or ignored the bad parts:
  • The Old Testament is full mortally repugnant passages which condone all sorts of evils such as slavery; killing witches, homosexuals, people who work on the sabbath and adulterers; genocide; mass killings; slavery; the rape of female captives in wartime; polygamy; killing of prisoners and child sacrifice. God routinely punishes people for the sins of others.
  • The New Testament is not much better. Jesus tells us his mission is to make family members hate one another, so that they shall love him more than their kin (Matt 10:35-37), that disciples must hate their parents, siblings, wives, and children (Luke 14:26), and that Peter and Paul elevate men over their wives who must obey their husbands as gods (1 Corinthians 11:3, 14:34-5, Eph. 5:22-24, Col. 3:18, 1 Tim. 2: 11-2, 1 Pet. 3:1). The Gospel of John implies that infants and anyone who never had the opportunity to hear about Christ are damned to hell, through no fault of their own.
Usually Christians point to the Golden Rule as the basis for their Christian morals. However, the Golden Rule can be found in most religions, some of whom predate Christianity. My view is that religions just tried to codify that which is hardwired into all normal humans by evolution.

See the following link: The evolution of compassion

I’d suggest developing a deeper understanding of what kind of community God is proposing in Deuteronomy (to use Deuteronomy as a shortcut for what is in other books also). Elements of the Deuteronomical ideal of a functioning society have split off into what is roughly the right and left of modern politics, i.e. accents on personal freedom vs societal obligation. Hebrew society was not set up on the principle of equality, but on the ideal that all people should have the freedom and opportunity to work and live according to their means, to support themselves through their own work and live dignified lives. Those with more were expected to provide a ‘bottom line’ for the poor, e.g. by leaving the scattered plants at the edges of a field of grain for the poor to gather. Without getting into too much detail - you can look into that yourself - the idea is of a society where the governing rules are a blend of personal and communal responsibility. It’s so different from our more fragmented ideas of how society should function today that it can’t effectively be judged through the same lens, to ‘get it’ you have to education yourself in biblical thinking.

All ancient civilizations had legal systems which regulated morally acceptable behavior . There is nothing about the Mosaic Laws that seem particularly morally enlightening for their time when compared with the laws of other ancient societies, and certainly nothing that you would expect from an omni-benevolent god. In fact, many of the Mosaic laws seem to have been copied from earlier civilizations.

However, that is the theory; I assume you are aware that theories of civic behaviour don’t always comply with how people actually act. People from within and outside of that society fell into temporary slavery as the result of debt, war, other reasons I think you have listed already. Provisions for this shortfall between the ideal and the actual were built into the system because, well, they had to be. At the time, temporary slavery was the available alternative to begging or death by starvation (more or less the same thing). Why? Well to get that you’ll really have to get your head around why human society doesn’t achieve what might be thought of as a desired state overnight. You’re never going to get that without looking into these issues a lot more deeply. If you can come up with a convincing case that in any period you want from the ancient world an actual, viable, better alternative existed - something that takes all factors into account - then it would be interesting to hear it.

I think the world would have been a much better place now and in the past if God had just banned slavery. There are few practices throughout history that has caused as much pain and suffering. I don't for one second subscribe to the idea that slavery was necessary for any reason. If God could tell the Hebrews that they weren't allowed to eat certain kinds of seafood, he could have told them not to keep slaves. And by the way, not all types of slavery was temporary. Indentured servitude as it was applied to Hebrews was mostly temporary, but chattel slavery as it was applied to non-Hebrews was permanent.

Other factors include the survival of God’s people. Take a look into the ups and downs of various peoples and civilisations in the ancient world. Some of them didn’t survive, others were assimilated. Without the survival of the Hebrew nation there would be no Western society, and hence no modern concept that slavery is wrong. What are the implications of that survival? What did it take for the Israelite nation to survive? What were the alternatives?

God showed that he was both willing and able to directly intervene in the natural world to ensure the survival of the Hebrews e.g. parting of the Red Sea. There was no reason for the Hebrews to practice slavery.

I'm not claiming that Christianity didn't have any positive impact on Western Civilization. On the contrary, Christianity has been the glue that held it together through many crises. Christians were instrumental in the anti-slavery campaigns. Christian institutions played crucial roles in fashioning the tenets, methods and institutions of what in time became modern science. The point I want to make is that the Bible is not the perfect moral guide that you would expect from an omni-benevolent god. You just have to remove the bad parts I referred to above to see that.

Finally really take the time to ask yourself; why does human society take time to evolve? What is different between the US in modern times and a nation state in say 1000BC? What is different about the context in which those two exist?
A potted history of human history from a biblical perspective goes something like this:

There is some ideal state, humans are vegetarian and function as stewards of the planet.
There is a ‘fall’, followed by a period of degeneration into a state of total degradation, every man for himself, each taking whatever he or she wants
God gets sick of this and brings about some catastrophic event
Life continues and God decides that he will simply have to make the best of things. He picks out one man to begin a new nation that he hopes will rise above the rest and become a beacon to the world.
Thus begins the process of temporarily replacing the ‘ideal’ with the ‘real’, holding on to those essential functions of behaviour that make the eventual reattainment of the ideal a distant but possible aim - a long, slow, painful, difficult process.

This history is told by turns allegorically and in the dirty business of the everyday struggle of life. But it’s still history - a process - without getting that you can’t even understand why you are asking your question in the first place.

A literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 is completely inconsistent with what modern science tells us about the formation of our planet and the evolution of life. If the Christian God exists, then these books might contain some allegorical meaning, but nothing more.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Tom 1

Optimistic sceptic
Supporter
Nov 13, 2017
12,212
12,526
Tarnaveni
✟818,769.00
Country
Romania
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
A literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 is completely inconsistent with what modern science tells us about the formation of our planet and the evolution of life.

A literal interpretation from a modern mindset - for a useful interpretation of the genesis narrative, for example, it is necessary to gain some understanding of how it was understood at the time it was written. John H Walton’s book ‘the lost world of genesis one’ is a good starting point for developing some understanding of thinking in the ancient world, re the genesis narrative and in general. You are falling into the same trap - re-interpreting past events you have a few basic ideas about through the lens of your own culturally conditioned, modern mindset. Unless you recognise that, and take advantage of the wealth of resources available to develop an actual understanding of the time period, your frivolous virtue signalling will continue to lack any weight or meaning.
 
Upvote 0

Tom 1

Optimistic sceptic
Supporter
Nov 13, 2017
12,212
12,526
Tarnaveni
✟818,769.00
Country
Romania
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
All ancient civilizations had legal systems which regulated morally acceptable behavior

Not really - e.g Hammurabi’s and Ur-Nammu’s codes didn’t serve in the way we understand civic codes governing society, and weren’t intended by any means to define a nation or society in the way that the levitical laws were.

In fact, many of the Mosaic laws seem to have been copied from earlier civilizations.

Yes there is some carry over in some elements of it. Certainly the OT shares some common general viewpoints with earlier civilisations. What’s your point?
 
Upvote 0

Brother Billy

Active Member
Sep 30, 2018
174
33
Sydney
✟4,448.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
A literal interpretation from a modern mindset - for a useful interpretation of the genesis narrative, for example, it is necessary to gain some understanding of how it was understood at the time it was written. John H Walton’s book ‘the lost world of genesis one’ is a good starting point for developing some understanding of thinking in the ancient world, re the genesis narrative and in general. You are falling into the same trap - re-interpreting past events you have a few basic ideas about through the lens of your own culturally conditioned, modern mindset. Unless you recognise that, and take advantage of the wealth of resources available to develop an actual understanding of the time period, your frivolous virtue signalling will continue to lack any weight or meaning.

I've listened to many Christians explain their (non-literal) interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2, but I've yet to hear something which makes sense to me.

Lets just take the story of Adam and Eve and The Fall. I'm assuming that you accept evolution as fact. If not, then the ignore this post. What exactly does this story mean to you?
  • were Adam and Eve real people who lived in the Middle East?
  • were they the first humans?
  • did God "create" humans using evolution?
  • how do modern humans compare to Adam and Eve before and after The fall?
  • if Adam and Eve weren't real people, what is the meaning and significance of The Fall?
 
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
Not really - e.g Hammurabi’s and Ur-Nammu’s codes didn’t serve in the way we understand civic codes governing society, and weren’t intended by any means to define a nation or society in the way that the levitical laws were.



Yes there is some carry over in some elements of it. Certainly the OT shares some common general viewpoints with earlier civilisations. What’s your point?

From my earlier posts: The point I want to make is that the Bible is not the perfect moral guide that you would expect from an omni-benevolent god. You just have to remove the bad parts I referred to above to see that.
 
Upvote 0