Slavery IS Regulated in the Bible!

2PhiloVoid · Mar 28, 2019

cvanwey said:
I think we all know the answer to that question Which is yet (another) reason skeptics, doubters, non-believers, etc, do not take such a book that seriously anymore anyhow

...it can also be that present day skeptics, doubters, non-believers, etc. have been hood-winked (or essentially brainwashed) by a certain Modernized, 20th-21st century sense of Civil and Human Rights that has little to no justification going for it other than...........................................................pragmatics. Or should I say that with a question mark. ["?"]

Moreover, surely YOU see the fact that for you to march in here and begin to "DECRY" the immoral savagery of the Bible (as you see it) but then to assert that you're a moral relativist or nihilist (or whatever?) is completely inconsistent, right?

I mean, you DON'T really get to play both sides of the court here.....!

InterestedAtheist · Mar 28, 2019

Decrying the moral savagery of the Bible is shooting fish in a barrel.

2PhiloVoid · Mar 28, 2019

InterestedAtheist said:
Decrying the moral savagery of the Bible is shooting fish in a barrel.

...says the atheistic polemicist while sitting in a Communist frat house.

InterestedAtheist · Mar 28, 2019

A polemicist is a person who engaged in controversial debate.
In this case, it's not controversial. It's obvious.

2PhiloVoid · Mar 28, 2019

InterestedAtheist said:
A polemicist is a person who engaged in controversial debate.
In this case, it's not controversial. It's obvious.

It's obvious.............from which fully justified ethical point of view, IA? That of the Pragmatist? That of the Communist?

The thing is, you and cvanwey have punched your fists into an ethical tar-baby, and I'm not sure you even realize it. In fact, from what I've seen of the modern mind-set, I'm not sure most people realize it.

It really is time to wake up folks.

InterestedAtheist · Mar 28, 2019

2PhiloVoid said:
It's obvious.............from which fully justified ethical point of view, IA? That of the Pragmatist? That of the Communist?

An old trick from Christian apologists - as soon as their morals are criticised, they try to redirect the conversation to discredit the accuser's moral basis. I could, of course, explain my moral system, but why bother? I'd like to stay on topic, so I won't follow that red herring. Instead, let's just agree that enslaving people is bad. And that the Bible supports it.

2PhiloVoid · Mar 28, 2019

InterestedAtheist said:
An old trick from Christian apologists - as soon as their morals are criticised, they try to redirect the conversation to discredit the accuser's moral basis. I could, of course, explain my moral system, but why bother? I'd like to stay on topic, so I won't follow that red herring. Instead, let's just agree that enslaving people is bad. And that the Bible supports it.

It's not a red-herring. See, if there's one thing I fully realize, it is this: politicized skeptics/atheists love to circumnavigate and obfuscate the fact that in order to criticize another ethical point of view, one really DOES have to do so by way of a fully realized, fully justified, unquestionable alternative ethical point of view. So, if you can't establish your own ethical praxis by which you do the criticism, then no one should really take you seriously.

From my point of view (i.e. that of the Critical Realist), I wouldn't take seriously either the ravings of a racist biblicist on the one hand, nor that of the committed skeptical, atheistic proletarian on the other ...............

InterestedAtheist · Mar 28, 2019

As I said: a red herring.
I would, of course, be able to explain and justify my moral system, but that will have to wait for another thread. Let's not change the subject - slavery in the Bible:

"The so-called Good Book explicitly, repeatedly and unequivocally endorses and approves of slavery, presenting it as an institution directly sanctioned by God."

"The idea that human beings can be bought and sold like possessions, and that this state should last in perpetuity, is a repugnant one that lies at the root of all the cruelties and inhumanities associated with slavery. But perhaps the Bible teaches that slaveowners should be kind and gentle to their servants, and the cruelty is a later development? Not quite:
“When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished; for the slave is his money.”
—Exodus 21:20-21 (RSV)"

"Consider the following sermon, “Mutual Relation of Masters and Slaves as Taught in the Bible“, which was preached by one Joseph Wilson in the First Presbyterian Church of Augusta, Georgia in January 1861:
Now, we have already seen that the Holy Spirit employs words which He [sic] has intended to be understood as distinctly enunciating the existence of domestic servitude—that He has sent to all the world a volume of truth, which is indisputably addressed to men who hold slaves and to the slaves who possess masters—and that, from the connections in which these highly suggestive words occur, He has included slavery as an organizing element in that family order which lies at the very foundation of Church and State.
Wilson’s sermon argues at length for the scriptural foundation of slavery, and the truth is, he is absolutely correct. Slavery unequivocally is taught throughout the Bible. The abolitionists who opposed it – who were both religious and secular – were on the right side morally, as everyone now recognizes; but theologically, the slaveholders had the upper hand. Only by sweeping these verses under the carpet could a religious case be made for abolition."

gaara4158 · Mar 28, 2019

2PhiloVoid said:
It's not a red-herring. See, if there's one thing I fully realize, it is this: politicized skeptics/atheists love to circumnavigate and obfuscate the fact that in order to criticize another ethical point of view, one really DOES have to do so by way of a fully realized, fully justified, unquestionable alternative ethical point of view. So, if you can't establish your own ethical praxis by which you do the criticism, then no one should really take you seriously.

From my point of view (i.e. that of the Critical Realist), I wouldn't take seriously either the ravings of a racist biblicist on the one hand, nor that of the committed skeptical, atheistic proletarian on the other ...............

Well, I don’t think that’s necessarily the case. There’s a valid point to be made about the tension between modern Christian attitudes towards slavery and what the Bible clearly says - and does not say - about it. There’s no need to espouse or condemn it in order to say that to be consistent, a Christian should either reject the Bible as authoritative on matters of slavery or accept that slavery is, in fact, an institution that is ordained by God.

2PhiloVoid · Mar 28, 2019

gaara4158 said:
Well, I don’t think that’s necessarily the case. There’s a valid point to be made about the tension between modern Christian attitudes towards slavery and what the Bible clearly says - and does not say - about it. There’s no need to espouse or condemn it in order to say that to be consistent, a Christian should either reject the Bible as authoritative on matters of slavery or accept that slavery is, in fact, an institution that is ordained by God.

Isn't this what I implied in my post to InterestedAtheist (i.e. #47 above)? I understand what you're saying; but really, your interjection here is beside the point since, if slavery isn't right or wrong, then the 'moral complaint' against it--in whatever form it may take--is a moot one. No, the interior axiom that is provoking the vitriol on all sides here is the assumption that: slavery is wrong at all times, at all places, in all forms, no matter what.

Therefore, if this isn't the case, there's no necessity of debate. However, if it is the case that at least some forms of slavery are morally wrong....................then it does need to be established as to why this is in fact the case at the get go. This interior, socially ingrained issue (i.e. again, slavery) doesn't get a free pass as being axiomatically wrong, and what I keep seeing time after time after time after time after time are atheists, one after another, showing up and simply making grandiose, brass tacks complaints about "how the Bible grossly and egregiously advocates for slavery."

No, just as Christians don't get a free pass with any axioms about God, neither do skeptics and atheists get any non-theistic free passes when it comes to ethical and moral complaints. If I didn't bring this up to counter your assertion here, gaara, I wouldn't be a Critical Realist who thinks that we all--each and every one of us--has to account for the multiple contexts by which we attempt to grapple with and understand the "texts" of the world, whether those texts are printed or instead come by way of verbal communication in the everyday processes of human interaction; and this is the case, I believe, whether or not those texts are moral in nature. No one is exempt--not Christians and not Atheists or other any other non-Christians.

danny ski · Mar 28, 2019

Neither Christianity nor Judaism practices slavery. The modern abolishment movement actually was born within Christianity. And even among the "Old Testament" Jews, slavery had always have a negative connotation- as in "remember you were once slaves in Egypt".

InterestedAtheist · Mar 28, 2019

InterestedAtheist · Mar 28, 2019

danny ski said:
Neither Christianity nor Judaism practices slavery. The modern abolishment movement actually was born within Christianity. And even among the "Old Testament" Jews, slavery had always have a negative connotation- as in "remember you were once slaves in Egypt".

The modern abolition movement may have been founded by Christians, but so was the modern slavery movement. And they had the scriptures on their side.

InterestedAtheist · Mar 28, 2019

2PhiloVoid said:
Isn't this what I implied in my post to InterestedAtheist (i.e. #47 above)? I understand what you're saying; but really, your interjection here is beside the point since, if slavery isn't right or wrong, then the 'moral complaint' against it--in whatever form it may take--is a moot one. No, the interior axiom that is provoking the vitriol on all sides here is the assumption that: slavery is wrong at all times, at all places, in all forms, no matter what.

Therefore, if this isn't the case, there's no necessity of debate. However, if it is the case that at least some forms of slavery are morally wrong....................then it does need to be established as to why this is in fact the case at the get go. This interior, socially ingrained issue (i.e. again, slavery) doesn't get a free pass as being axiomatically wrong, and what I keep seeing time after time after time after time after time are atheists, one after another, showing up and simply making grandiose, brass tacks complaints about "how the Bible grossly and egregiously advocates for slavery."

No, just as Christians don't get a free pass with any axioms about God, neither do skeptics and atheists get any non-theistic free passes when it comes to ethical and moral complaints. If I didn't bring this up to counter your assertion here, gaara, I wouldn't be a Critical Realist who thinks that we all--each and every one of us--has to account for the multiple contexts by which we attempt to grapple with and understand the "texts" of the world, whether those texts are printed or instead come by way of verbal communication in the everyday processes of human interaction; and this is the case, I believe, whether or not those texts are moral in nature. No one is exempt--not Christians and not Atheists or other any other non-Christians.

Do you think that slavery is immoral?
Yes?
Good. Me too. There, that was easy, wasn't it?

Of course, what you're trying to do is create a smokescreen. Distract from the question "Does the Bible endorse slavery" by trying to turn the conversation to other topics. But let's stay on topic. Slavery is a bad thing, as you and I and all sensible people agree, and the Bible does indeed endorse it. Simple as that.

A_Thinker · Mar 28, 2019

InterestedAtheist said:
Unfortunately, it's rather more complicated than that.
Yes, the Bible does say "Love your neighbour as you love yourself."
But it also has a huge amount of violence, hatred and killing in it, much of it inspired by God, directly ordered by God, and/or committed by God Himself.

That's before Christ ... an apologetic for pre-Christ Jewish history.

Christianity is based upon Christ, from whose teachings we have achieved the moral advancements I spoke of previously.

The cultures responsible for bringing slavery into the 19th century are the Europeans and the Arabs, and perhaps some Asians and Africans ... but not the Jews ...

"By the time of Jesus, there is no slavery mentioned among the Hebrew/Jewish people, ... though it does exist among the various people groups that surround them.

In fact, one can make an argument that Christianity, itself, has been one of the major catalysts to abolishing slavery in many parts of the world.

You may say that the Bible says nothing against slavery, but it does say that "we should LOVE one another in the same ways that we love ourselves". This, the second great commandment, effectively makes slavery impossible among the people who follow it."

danny ski · Mar 28, 2019

InterestedAtheist said:
The modern abolition movement may have been founded by Christians, but so was the modern slavery movement. And they had the scriptures on their side.

Not everything was written down in the "Old Testament". Slavery was most certainly regulated because that was the reality of the times. Hence, we call that part of the Scripture Law or Teaching. The context it was presented in is why we don't practice slavery just like we don't practice polygamy or other issues that were or were not covered, yet practiced.

2PhiloVoid · Mar 28, 2019

InterestedAtheist said:
Do you think that slavery is immoral?
Yes?
Good. Me too. There, that was easy, wasn't it?

I don't remember giving you authorization to speak for me. But of course, I can understand that you'd be tempted to do so since you're likely existing and breathing upon a Bolshevik cigarette. Am I wrong to surmise this? Am I wrong to not demand that both you and cvanwey come clean on your respective positions on why this matter is so very important?

Of course, what you're trying to do is create a smokescreen. Distract from the question "Does the Bible endorse slavery" by trying to turn the conversation to other topics. But let's stay on topic. Slavery is a bad thing, as you and I and all sensible people agree, and the Bible does indeed endorse it. Simple as that.

I love the way you accuse me of doing what it is that you, yourself, are doing. And if the Bible does indeed 'endorse' slavery as you say, then am I by all means to affirm the consequent that you allege exists, especially when @cvanwey in his OP has stated that this thread is supposed to avoid discussing "the moral implications"?

No, I'm rather sitting here witnessing the travesty of interlocution that you and cvanwey are attempting to bring about here. And do I call it a travesty? Yes, because nothing is really as "simple" as you would like to make it out to be for the common masses. Can you assure me that there is no Communistic chutzpah or other atheistic obfuscating banter being plied here on your account, IA? Or will your retort "simply" be to chalk up my response as typical "apologetics tactics," as cvanwey is often prone to do?

cvanwey · Mar 28, 2019

Apologetic_Warrior said:
Oh but there are verses which speak to types and if we take in the context, not just the surrounding context, but even limiting the context to one writer, say Moses, then we should be able to discern guiding principals to the particulars. For example,

Deuteronomy 6:4 “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. 5 You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. 6 And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. 7 You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise. 8 You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. 9 You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates."

The Hebrews who took the Great Commandment in Deut 6:4 to heart, would on principal take the other great commandment to heart. In fact, Jesus, who is the God-man, said that all the law and prophets hang on these two commandments. Obviously then, obedience in loving God rules out specific types of slavery which cannot be reconciled with either of the great commandments.

I'm sorry, but this is not talking about any type of 'slavery.' Yes, 'the word 'slave' can also be used figuratively. Such as, 'I am a slave to my craft'. A 'slave' either means 'legal property of another whom is forced to obey.' Or, to 'work extremely hard.' Etc... The verses mentioned do not specify as such. You are 'show-horning' the word 'slave' in there to throw off the sent.

The verses you bring up instead exhibit stern requests to love this entity. And later, when Jesus comes along, is when He drives such verses home, when 'Mark' writes passages such as:

'15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.'

Which is not so much about 'slavery', but instead a threat.

And in regards to you stating ' In fact, Jesus, who is the God-man, said that all the law and prophets hang on these two commandments. Obviously then, obedience in loving God rules out specific types of slavery which cannot be reconciled with either of the great commandments.'

If this is the case, let's not abide by any other 'suggestions', 'commands', or 'proclamations'. All we need to know is 'two commandments'.

Attention everyone, 99+% of the Bible is no longer important.

Jesus said a lot of things. Playing 'Texas Sharpshooter' does not hide the fact that there exists verses, 'commanded or allowed by God', stating it is permissible for slave owners to beat their slaves, treat them as property, and pass them down for life.... As long as they are not Hebrew of course.

Apologetic_Warrior said:
Servants obey your masters is reinforcement? He did speak to a particular audience with a particular notion of servant-hood in mind. That we can easily rip Scripture out of context is not an issue with God or the writers of Scripture, it is an issue with us. How is slavery temporary when it has been an issue from the earliest civilizations up to modern times? If you read the wikipedia article I linked, or watch a documentary on the southern boarder in the US, you'll notice that human trafficking is recognized as a form of slavery today.

When I state 'temporary', I mean when people here use the idea of 'working off debt voluntarily for six years'; that later, such acts will pretty much no longer be 'the norm.' Hence, it's a temporary means to 'paying off debt', and should not be confused with 'other types of slavery'.

However, there exists other verses one can reference, to even 'justify' trafficking, quite frankly.

And as stated prior, Jesus mentions slavery, in the sense that he lays down no specifics about it really. He states for slaves to obey their masters. Like I stated prior, if Jesus never mentioned slavery at all, then one could easily rationalize them self no longer adhering to such earlier OT commands. However, Jesus mentions slavery specifically, making it still a binding topic. And again, since Jesus does not really specify 'what' constitutes' as slavery, the 'sky is the limit', so-to-speak...

Apologetic_Warrior said:
No, it's up to skeptics and non-believers to use convenient definitions of slavery which suite the skeptical non-believing agenda as argumentation and supposed justification for their anger with God. Btw, this notion that I suggested interpretation of Scripture is subjective, is bunk.

If memory serves me correctly, in post #24, I stated IF:

'That non-Hebrew slaves cannot be kept for life, be beaten just short of death for life, treated as property for life, and inherited for life. Demonstrate as such, and I will recant my prior conclusion.'

Well, you know you can't. So instead, I will possibly read continued apologetics, 'interpretation', 'subjective' translation, etc...

Apologetic_Warrior said:
Even when arguing against the Bible, it's usually helpful and courteous to provide Scripture references. I will await for verses using those specific words and meanings.

Seriously? We don't all know these verses by now?

"20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property."

"44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

Apologetic_Warrior said:
No, words do so often have more than one meaning, and their meanings can even vary even if ever so slightly from one dictionary to another. Often when searching for the meaning of a word important to me, I will consult multiple resources, for the mentioned reasons and others. Ancient words, especially transliterated from other languages, can be even more difficult, but not impossible to pin down.

Yes, and apparently, 'God' gave me the power to reason. And when I read the above verses, apparently, it's 'a-okay' to take slaves, beat them, treat them as property, and own them for life, (provided they are not Hebrew).

Which is why my conclusion is if there exists a God, whom claims to also infer the 'Golden rule', and to love Him, Seems highly suspicious or unlikely to condone such acts. It seems much more probable that humans write of such 'allowances' to 'justify' their own personal agendas

Which then leads one to ask... What else is human inspired, which is passed off as 'God inspired'?

If you read the end of post #1, you will see how this all ties together. This is just one of the many reasons doubters doubt. It makes no sense; when reading other parts of the Bible.

Apologetic_Warrior said:
Unfortunately evil people have abused others who willingly and literally "signed their life away". For all of the morality involved in the topic though, seeing the forest before the trees, it seems we have to have some sort of unchanging universal standard of morality by which to measure our morality as individuals,

Please try again. The Bible condones the beating, not the humans apparently

The Bible could have said ANYTHING. It specifically chose it's okay to do, this, that, and the other. Not my words, the Bibles specifically. Please own it.

Apologetic_Warrior said:
and I am curious, how the non-believing skeptic can account for an objective standard of morality, because subjective standards change and certainly cannot speak universally. Sorry, I cannot help but see the relation due to the nature of the topic and the nearly universal position on slavery across the globe today, at least as it pertains to specific forms of slavery in the legal sense.

As stated in the OP, I'm not addressing the 'moral aspect' really. My point, is that when the topic of slavery is brought up to believers, they are quick to 'defend' what they state the verses 'actually' mean. If I was to mention something like Mark 12:31, you would not need to 're-interpret'. The fact you are 'defending' such allowances, means you too would not agree with what the verses seem to allow

Meaning, you and I both agree that owning other humans, for life, and being allowed to beat them for life, does not seem to coincide with Mark 12:31 now does it?

2PhiloVoid · Mar 28, 2019

cvanwey said:
As stated in the OP, I'm not addressing the 'moral aspect' really. My point, is that when the topic of slavery is brought up to believers, they are quick to 'defend' what they state the verses 'actually' mean. If I was to mention something like Mark 12:31, you would not need to 're-interpret'. The fact you are 'defending' such allowances, means you too would not agree with what the verses seem to allow Meaning, you and I both agree that owning other humans, for life, and being allowed to beat them for life, does not seem to coincide with Mark 12:31 now does it?

And it's on this EXACT point that you flounder in that, from my perspective of Critical Realism, ALL engagement with a text, of any kind, requires various acts of 'interpretation.' There is no 'reading' without an accompanying evaluation of the symbols of communication and an act of 'interpretation.'

So, my problem with your whole project is not so much centered upon the Bible itself but in what I think is your deficient praxis by which you handle ANY text, and not just the Bible. And until we can agree on the epistemology involved (and from what I've seen so far, I'm not sure we can), we're at a logger-heads BEFORE we even flip-open something like the Bible to peer into its statements about "slavery."

cvanwey · Mar 28, 2019

2PhiloVoid said:
...it can also be that present day skeptics, doubters, non-believers, etc. have been hood-winked (or essentially brainwashed) by a certain Modernized, 20th-21st century sense of Civil and Human Rights that has little to no justification going for it other than...........................................................pragmatics. Or should I say that with a question mark. ["?"]

Moreover, surely YOU see the fact that for you to march in here and begin to "DECRY" the immoral savagery of the Bible (as you see it) but then to assert that you're a moral relativist or nihilist (or whatever?) is completely inconsistent, right?

I mean, you DON'T really get to play both sides of the court here.....!

But I'm not. 'Slavery of 'good.'

One of my points is that it is the 'Christians' which seem to speaking out of both sides of their proverbial mouths.

You can test this in two simple ways...

1. Compare the 'Golden rule' to the said slavery passages. They are in stark contrast to one another, as I would assume (you) as well, would not enjoy being beaten for life, treated as property for life, and passed down as property for life (allowed and approved by your God all mighty). But maybe you are into that sort of thing? Which I then ask, why aren't you then seeking such an arrangement? Unless I'm mistaken and you are? Because I doubt it would be very hard to arrange as such, would it?

2. If slavery was 'good', I would not have stirred up a 'hornet's nest' in attempted 'defense' of the topic

You would just role your eyes, and consider me ignorant; like a small child whom makes an unwarranted claim you simply dismiss as naive.

Slavery IS Regulated in the Bible!

Get my point, Web-Maker ???

Veteran

Get my point, Web-Maker ???

Veteran

Get my point, Web-Maker ???

Veteran

Get my point, Web-Maker ???

Veteran

Gen Alpha Dad

Get my point, Web-Maker ???

Newbie

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Get my point, Web-Maker ???

Well-Known Member

Get my point, Web-Maker ???

Well-Known Member

Similar threads