Slavery IS Regulated in the Bible!

Halbhh · Apr 2, 2019

InterestedAtheist said:
You know, if it was true that God really does approve of slavery, that God thinks owning and abusing a human being is a good thing, that would be a terrible problem for Christians, because it shows that God supports evil.
So I really do understand why you don't want to admit it. But the Bible is quite clear. God does support slavery. You are unable to show evidence that He condemns it, and unable to discredit the parts of the Bible that support slavery. That, I'm sure, is unfortunate. But there we are. The question has been answered. If you can't accept that, then say so.

You say "So I really do understand why you don't want to admit it."

That's the 'mind reading' error you wanted me to help you avoid. Ok, here, I'm pointing it out to you.

Instead of that just wrong guess, try the post just above, #180, and the links it offers you.

InterestedAtheist · Apr 2, 2019

Halbhh said:
Instead of trying to guess (mind reading?) about what we know and don't know, as you said to me to let you know if you make the error of 'mind reading'...

Instead of that, look at posts like:

#61, 63, 65 (link: Slavery IS Regulated in the Bible!)
and
#38 in this thread (link: Slavery IS Regulated in the Bible!)

Thank you for those references. There doesn't seem to be anything in them which contradicts my point, however.
Paul supported slavery. He sent Philemon back to his master. Did he say "slavery is wrong, I will help you escapr?" No. Did he tell Philemon 's master that it was his duty to free his slaves? He did not. Yes, he said to treat him better, but so what?

As to it being Christians who abolished slavery -technically true, but a big logical flaw, since virtually everyone in western society was a Christian at this point. What you could do is show that the Christian religion is against slavery. But the problem is, it isnt. God approves of slavery as an institution. That's why He commanded that people should be bought, sold and abused.

InterestedAtheist · Apr 2, 2019

Halbhh said:
You say "So I really do understand why you don't want to admit it."

That's the 'mind reading' error you wanted me to help you avoid. Ok, here, I'm pointing it out to you.

Oh, thank you.
So you're saying you would be glad it it turned out the Bible supported slavery? Because, logically, that's what you just mean.
Not mind reading. Just following your own reasoning.

Halbhh · Apr 2, 2019

InterestedAtheist said:
Thank you for those references. There doesn't seem to be anything in them which contradicts my point, however.
Paul supported slavery. He sent Philemon back to his master. Did he say "slavery is wrong, I will help you escapr?" No. Did he tell Philemon 's master that it was his duty to free his slaves? He did not. Yes, he said to treat him better, but so what?

As to it being Christians who abolished slavery -technically true, but a big logical flaw, since virtually everyone in western society was a Christian at this point. What you could do is show that the Christian religion is against slavery. But the problem is, it isnt. God approves of slavery as an institution. That's why He commanded that people should be bought, sold and abused.

Better than all of those alternatives, Paul basically required Philemon to entirely treat his former slave not only as
1) a free man.

But much, much better than only that -- also:
2) as a total social equal. (and this is simply revolutionary at that time)

And even more than that --

3) to love him as a brother (!)....

A far higher level of true equality and justice than anything in American law today.

And it set the actual, true standard for Christians that actually believe in Christ (instead of only paying lip service and pretending to be Christian for the social advantages and respectability it has had, while in general living in opposite ways to how Christ said to live.)

Halbhh · Apr 2, 2019

InterestedAtheist said:
Oh, thank you.
So you're saying you would be glad it it turned out the Bible supported slavery? Because, logically, that's what you just mean.
Not mind reading. Just following your own reasoning.

Better check for additional parts not so familiar....

1Paul, a prisoner of Christ Jesus, and Timothy our brother,

To Philemon our dear friend and fellow worker— 2 also to Apphia our sister and Archippus our fellow soldier—and to the church that meets in your home:

3 Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

4 I always thank my God as I remember you in my prayers, 5 because I hear about your love for all his holy people and your faith in the Lord Jesus. 6 I pray that your partnership with us in the faith may be effective in deepening your understanding of every good thing we share for the sake of Christ. 7 Your love has given me great joy and encouragement, because you, brother, have refreshed the hearts of the Lord’s people.

Paul’s Plea for Onesimus

8 Therefore, although in Christ I could be bold and order you to do what you ought to do, 9 yet I prefer to appeal to you on the basis of love. It is as none other than Paul—an old man and now also a prisoner of Christ Jesus— 10 that I appeal to you for my son Onesimus, who became my son while I was in chains. 11 Formerly he was useless to you, but now he has become useful both to you and to me.

12 I am sending him—who is my very heart—back to you. 13 I would have liked to keep him with me so that he could take your place in helping me while I am in chains for the gospel. 14 But I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that any favor you do would not seem forced but would be voluntary. 15 Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back forever—16 no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a fellow man and as a brother in the Lord.

17 So if you consider me a partner, welcome him as you would welcome me. 18 If he has done you any wrong or owes you anything, charge it to me. 19 I, Paul, am writing this with my own hand. I will pay it back—not to mention that you owe me your very self. 20 I do wish, brother, that I may have some benefit from you in the Lord; refresh my heart in Christ. 21 Confident of your obedience, I write to you, knowing that you will do even more than I ask.

22 And one thing more: Prepare a guest room for me, because I hope to be restored to you in answer to your prayers.

23 Epaphras, my fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus, sends you greetings. 24 And so do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas and Luke, my fellow workers.

25 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.

Philemon 1 NIV
-----------------------

1), 2), 3) Freedom, Equality, Love -- as just above in post #184

This was the entirely inevitable result over time of this:

12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. -- Jesus, the Christ

It was only a matter of time until some slave owners were converted, and then this next step -- the letter to Philemon making his former slave a total equal in all ways -- would be the only possible true way to then follow the above command from Christ.

But it takes time to change the world when only some people believe in Christ.

InterestedAtheist · Apr 2, 2019

Halbhh said:
Better than all of those alternatives, Paul basically required Philemon to entirely treat his former slave not only as
1) a free man.

But much, much better than only that -- also:
2) as a total social equal. (and this is simply revolutionary at that time)

And even more than that --

3) to love him as a brother (!)....

A far higher level of true equality and justice than anything in American law today.

And it set the actual, true standard for Christians that actually believe in Christ (instead of only paying lip service and pretending to be Christian for the social advantages and respectability it has had, while in general living in opposite ways to how Christ said to live.)

http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl2.htm

Rather than give the slave sanctuary, Paul returned him to his owner. Paul seems to hint that he would like Philemon to give Onesimus his freedom, but does not actually request it.

Paul apparently saw no evil in the concept of one person owning another as a piece of property. In his Letter to Philemon, he had every opportunity to discuss the immorality of slave-owning, but declined to do so.

InterestedAtheist · Apr 2, 2019

If Jesus, Paul, or any of the influential figures of early Christianity had seen slavery for the evil that it was and is, they would undoubtedly have spoken out against it. Now, it does you credit that you realise that slavery is a bad thing, of course; but the fact of the matter is, the Bible clearly shows you that you disagree with God on this.

gaara4158 · Apr 3, 2019

2PhiloVoid said:
...well, I guess we'll never get to all those other discussions we could have about whether God driven judgments [whatever the form] are justified. We'll have to save those for some other rain-day.

ok. But as you do, make sure to keep it tied in support of the locus of the OP.

I've heard that term somewhere before ...

And from where did you get this idea about the "veil of uncertainty"? It almost sounds like it was lifted from Joh................. Oops! I'll have to let you tell me your source.

I guess it's a good thing I don't go in for old fashioned Divine Command ethics, isn't it?

Well, I don’t claim that my moral philosophy is original to me (I doubt anyone’s is). But yes, the goal of human flourishing is lifted from Sam Harris, and the veil of ignorance, while introduced to me by Matt Dillahunty, originates in the 18th century from social contract morality (worked on by Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, Kant, and others) and is most recently attached to Johns Harsyani and Rawls. You’ll notice I get a lot of my verbiage from Harris and Dillahunty since they’re my favorite atheist rhetoricians, but rest assured they’re not my sole sources of philosophy.

You stated you’re not a divine command theorist, which is good, but I think my pragmatic ethical system is more defensible than any moral philosophy that requires the existence of God. To tie this back into the purpose of this thread, I believe for the reasons previously stated that I have more defensible grounds by which to criticize the institution of slavery found in the Bible than Christians do.

cvanwey · Apr 3, 2019

devolved said:
The position of Judeo-Christian theology is that in its inception of humanity rejected the theocratic aquisition of knowledge, and instead went with subjective preference and self-discovery. That's the story of the fall.

God seems to honor that approach, and merely nudge people in the direction of discovery of proper relationship with nature and human community. Whatever revelation you get from Biblical narrative is contextualized in the existing human knowledge, traditions and language.

As such, the context for Israel's theocracy wasn't progressive revelation, but progressive trust.

As stated prior, God has no problem telling people what to do, and what not to do in many categories. Why the 'progressive trust' in the topic of slavery? If God considered slavery 'bad' on any account, surely God would have mentioned as such. Since God does not, there appears nothing 'progressive' for humans to aspire to

As stated elsewhere, if the Bible did not mention slavery at all, or had one line stating something to the affect of, 'don't own other humans as property', this entire thread would never had been started.

The point being, since the 'beginning', humans have enslaved other humans. It still goes on today. What might be God's plan in this human 'self-discovery' process? Being that slavery will never be considered 'bad' from the 'eye's of God'?

devolved said:
Your will find it absurd because your theological expectations are absurd.

You have to understand that God didn't institute slavery. God is shown to be working through people to restore order and proper relationship between people and God. That's the predominant narrative of the entire of the Judeo-Christian story.

God allows slavery. That is what I understand

The many commandments are pretty crystal clear. Many of which state what not to do

Seems odd that slavery, an institution which still goes on plenty today, (in it's many forms), will most likely continue until the 'end of days'. And in such a case, a Christian could have 'good theological reasoning' to justify such actions, absent from 'sin', as the Bible condones such practices.

devolved said:
Your objections seem to be to your distaste for cultural standards of the past, which I wholeheartedly share. I wouldn't want to live in OT Israel anymore than I would want to live in the OT Greek or Roman culture.

Not so fast. I feel this deserves further clarification....

Yes, I agree 'back then' may have been considered 'savage times.' But this is not my 'beef'...

The 'beef' is simple....

1. God allows slavery ---> then, now, and forever more, while on earth.

2. This raises a conflict, when referencing Mark 12:31. Allowing slavery, an institution in which 'most' would not want for themselves, is diametrically opposed to the 'golden rule'. Hence, there is a contradiction. Which rule gets 'over-looked' or negated?

cvanwey · Apr 3, 2019

BNR32FAN said:
The slaves you are referring to were from the spoils of war which the wars were waged because of disobedience to God and attacks against Israel which God punished these people due to their disobedience and made examples of them for other nations to see. Slavery was punishment for disobedience to God and acts of immorality. As a result of slavery many were taught the scriptures and given the opportunity to be reconciled to God resulting in their salvation where as if they had been left to their own fate would’ve resulted in eternal damnation in the lake of fire. So while it may seem like a harsh punishment to some people, God being outside of time knew this short punishment here on earth could result in the salvation of many people who would’ve otherwise burned for all eternity. So life of slavery was a small price to pay. Also slave owners were not allowed to beat their slaves without adequate reason and the Jews did have law’s concerning the severity of punishment of slaves.

All I need is one Bible passage:

'So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children. “This is what you are to do,” they said. “Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is NOT a virgin.” Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan.'

I guess they only taught the 'virgins' about proper 'morality'

The rest were killed, and you don't learn much of the 'correct' ways when you are executed.

cvanwey · Apr 3, 2019

2PhiloVoid said:
Ok. I'll approach this in a more Wittegensteinian style, and in the attempt to have some solidarity with you in the thought strategy that you're employeeing (or feeling), I'll agree with you to a limited extent and say that, obviously, it appears that for the God of the Bible it's NOT a sin to own a slave, at least not as slavery manifested itself in the overarching political milieu of life such as existed in ancient Israel.

(disclaimer): I respect you and feel you are very intelligent. Please do not take any offense to what is said directly below.

I feel you are being 'less-than-completely-honest.' Yes, I cannot prove this, it is just a hunch I have.

***********************

You are making a very simple OP topic waaaaay to 'complex'.

Let's start over. In doing so, I 'trust' will conclude no amount of study will 'change my position.' The reason(s) will also be furnished.... Please brace yourself....

1. The OT condones slavery
2. The NT condones slavery
3. The allowance, to practically any form of slavery, as 'slavery' is not clearly defined by the Bible, contradicts Mark 12:31

The end

cvanwey · Apr 3, 2019

Halbhh said:
Yes, and more -- to even enslave, and more, to even mistreat employees also, and more....

All since Christ said Matthew 7:12 with the words "in everything" ( or "all things" etc.) -- As soon as a person learns He said it, or simply soon in time after the wrong-doer has been converted (if they are truly converted, not just pretending), and begins to realize things they personally were accustomed to are wrong.

Those that truly believe, they change, over time. Real change. Christ said actually that those who don't put His commandments into practice (those that don't begin, try, progress), that such persons would not make it (won't gain Life, but instead go to destruction). That's a key message to us in Matthew chapter 7.

Nope. "God" states you may beat your slaves. Not humans. If God did not 'like' such treatment, God would not allow for it. God would either not clarify what one is to do with slaves at all, or certainly would not specifically divinely justify the actual word 'beat', when making reference to slaves. Your response is absurd, quite honestly.

If God does not like 'enslavement', God would have pronounced as such. The fact God makes 'special concessions' for slavery, means it is allowable, and without sin to boot!

Please reconcile this 'fact', and learn that you are tripping all over yourself with every successive response, in attempted defense of this topic.

cvanwey · Apr 3, 2019

PhantomGaze said:
In regards to the original post, the poster seems to be forgetting that he's only indicting Christianity based upon an ethical framework that he's inherited from his Christian forebears. The pagan (pre-christian) world never had objections to slavery and would likely scoff at the notion that humans are all created equal.

To the point that the Bible has verses that don't condemn but regulate slavery, I would say that ideas initially introduced are rarely fully expressed. Equality is the logical extension of Christian theology that has all people equal before God.

The grander narrative of the God's redeeming the world through Christ is the narrative through which Christians are meant to approach the Bible, and this is the lens through which Christians are supposed to approach the Bible, and that is according to the Bible itself.

The biggest problem with the argument from the original post though is that if you proverbially take an axe to the very root of the tree that is our intellectual foundations of equality, yet still demand it's fruit, you're going to go hungry. It might not happen right away, but society will change, and I think we can see this beginning even now, toward one that is increasingly aggressive based on political associations, the rise of nationalism, ethics based upon self-interest rather than love, increase of isolation and a decline in pro-social behavior. To bring this full circle, these are symptoms of regression to a Pre-Christian state where we have no rational basis for the equality and solidarity that we value.

You might want to follow along more closely, because you may have missed a lot

This is what has been concluded thus far...

1. The word 'slavery' is not well defined by the Bible. Hence, practically any form of such an action seems permissible by God.
2. The OT condones 'slavery.'
3. The NT condones 'slavery.'
4. Had the Bible not specified this topic at all, or if even one verse stated 'to own other humans is bad', this thread would not have been started. As one could THEN easily justify God's dislike for the action of 'slavery', in all it's varying forms.
5. Practically any form of such a topic (i.e.) 'slavery', seems to contradict the golden rule.
6. I'm not addressing the moral implications. I'm just addressing that most would not want to be enslaved, which contradicts the second primary tenet to Christianity; just behind loving God.

Seems as though humans wrote such verses, because they wanted to justify their own actions. But since this topic is in the Bible, apologists will attempt to defend it. Because if they don't, non-believers could make a very strong case that other Biblical content may ALSO not be "given by God." Once the link is broken, the entire assertion of divine authority, provided in the Bible as a whole, falls apart...

2PhiloVoid · Apr 3, 2019

gaara4158 said:
Well, I don’t claim that my moral philosophy is original to me (I doubt anyone’s is). But yes, the goal of human flourishing is lifted from Sam Harris, and the veil of ignorance, while introduced to me by Matt Dillahunty, originates in the 18th century from social contract morality (worked on by Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, Kant, and others) and is most recently attached to Johns Harsyani and Rawls. You’ll notice I get a lot of my verbiage from Harris and Dillahunty since they’re my favorite atheist rhetoricians, but rest assured they’re not my sole sources of philosophy.

Thank you for laying out your influences. This helps me to envision some of the ways in which you conceptualize the overall moral scheme presently active in your mind. I'm not familiar with John Harsyani, but with the others you've listed, I am.

You stated you’re not a divine command theorist, which is good, but I think my pragmatic ethical system is more defensible than any moral philosophy that requires the existence of God. To tie this back into the purpose of this thread, I believe for the reasons previously stated that I have more defensible grounds by which to criticize the institution of slavery found in the Bible than Christians do.

...well, forgive me, but I think that if those who framed the United Declaration of Human Rights had difficulty in establishing and grounding their ethical notions, you will too. (We all do, in fact, but that's neither here nor there at the moment ...)

So, at the moment, here's a list of principles that seem inherent to your position:

1) Some ethereal "sense" of human flourishing (whatever that is exactly).
2) Some ethereal "sense" of democratic justice as supposedly rational and axiomatic.

Feel free to edit and add to this list. I'm just putting this out there for the sake of discussion.

If these are correct, and since we're not just talking about ethics in general, but in assessing the concept of slavery we find in the Bible, then you'll need to explain how the Bible doesn't measure up while at the same time explaining how your 'influences' trump. What may happen is that I'll have to take each of your influences one at a time and sift through their individual articulations.

2PhiloVoid · Apr 3, 2019

cvanwey said:
(disclaimer): I respect you and feel you are very intelligent. Please do not take any offense to what is said directly below.

I feel you are being 'less-than-completely-honest.' Yes, I cannot prove this, it is just a hunch I have.

***********************

You are making a very simple OP topic waaaaay to 'complex'.

Let's start over. In doing so, I 'trust' will conclude no amount of study will 'change my position.' The reason(s) will also be furnished.... Please brace yourself....

1. The OT condones slavery
2. The NT condones slavery
3. The allowance, to practically any form of slavery, as 'slavery' is not clearly defined by the Bible, contradicts Mark 12:31

The end

You're welcome to state 'why' you think I'm not being honest.

As for what I've said so far in response to your OP, I'm not making going to retract anything. The is complex and, in my view, it is of utmost negligence for a person to pretend that any issues that pertain to society, ethics and religion are simple. In saying this, you see, if there is one thing I've learned by becoming educated at the university level, it is that Occam's Razor doesn't rule in all cases; to some extent, if we're not careful and ardent in applying ourselves to the numerous details that exist within a social issue, whether that issue is taking place today, or it happened 200 years ago, or it's one that only reveals itself to us through an extent piece of religious literature, and we just continue to play hop scotch over and around all those tiny bits in those issues which we don't want to acknowledge, then we're not really being honest with ourselves, nor with any of our interlocutors, and our reliance upon Occam's Razor ends up becoming one big SORRY EXCUSE for a lack of full engagement.

By the way, your proposition #3 falters ... for reasons I've ALREADY supplied.

'Nuff said!

cvanwey · Apr 3, 2019

2PhiloVoid said:
You're welcome to state 'why' you think I'm not being honest.

As for what I've said so far in response to your OP, I'm not making going to retract anything. The is complex and, in my view, it is of utmost negligence for a person to pretend that any issues that pertain to society, ethics and religion are simple. In saying this, you see, if there is one thing I've learned by becoming educated at the university level, it is that Occam's Razor doesn't rule in all cases; to some extent, if we're not careful and ardent in applying ourselves to the numerous details that exist within a social issue, whether that issue is taking place today, or it happened 200 years ago, or it's one that only reveals itself to us through an extent piece of religious literature, and we just continue to play hop scotch over and around all those tiny bits in those issues which we don't want to acknowledge, then we're not really being honest with ourselves, nor with any of our interlocutors, and our reliance upon Occam's Razor ends up becoming one big SORRY EXCUSE for a lack of full engagement.

By the way, your proposition #3 falters ... for reasons I've ALREADY supplied.

'Nuff said!

(Another disclaimer: My objective, in my honesty, is really to more address the fundamentalists... You certainly do not fall within that camp

So as stated prior, you are an 'enigma', or extreme outlier. Many here claim all scripture is from God, especially as proven where scripture is quoted. My 'simple' position, ultimately, is that if it can be justifiably concluded that all such verses, pertaining to 'slavery', are human created, and not God inspired, what other verses can be questioned as authentic to messages from a claimed God? Which would mean all skeptics, non-believers, and atheists are well justified in their conclusion that the Bible is no 'better' or 'worse' than any other believed upon ancient book written by past humans alone; claiming divine authority.)

But since you do not fall within this camp, we may very well be just posting replies, to no end

However, in response, I'm going to try something. Let's place your last response to the proverbial test, quite simply....

Let's see where it goes.... This is not a trick, and I actually have no agenda forthcoming. Let us instead assume a simple 'hypothetical'.

But first, let me define such a term more clearly than the Bible seems to:

A chattel slave 'is an enslaved person who is owned for ever and whose children and children's children are automatically enslaved. Chattel slaves are individuals treated as complete property, to be bought and sold. Chattel slavery was supported and made legal by European governments and monarchs.' - first response from Google...

America again makes chattle slavery legal. Using the Bible, find me a verse which would DISALLOW for it?

2PhiloVoid · Apr 3, 2019

cvanwey said:
(Another disclaimer: My objective, in my honesty, is really to more address the fundamentalists... You certainly do not fall within that camp So as stated prior, you are an 'enigma', or extreme outlier. Many here claim all scripture is from God, especially as proven where scripture is quoted. My 'simple' position, ultimately, is that if it can be justifiably concluded that all such verses, pertaining to 'slavery', are human created, and not God inspired, what other verses can be questioned as authentic to messages from a claimed God? Which would mean all skeptics, non-believers, and atheists are well justified in their conclusion that the Bible is no 'better' or 'worse' than any other believed upon ancient book written by past humans alone; claiming divine authority.)

But since you do not fall within this camp, we may very well be just posting replies, to no end

However, in response, I'm going to try something. Let's place your last response to the proverbial test, quite simply....

... you mean, you're willing to take in the complex contexts within the Bible, along with its historical inter-textual meanings and take ALL of this, on the whole, as a whole....and seriously?

Wow. You really are making some prog.....................................oh. I see. That's not the course you seem to be on here.

Let's see where it goes.... This is not a trick, and I actually have no agenda forthcoming. Let us instead assume a simple 'hypothetical'.

Not a 'trick,' ay?

But first, let me define such a term more clearly than the Bible seems to:

A chattel slave 'is an enslaved person who is owned for ever and whose children and children's children are automatically enslaved. Chattel slaves are individuals treated as complete property, to be bought and sold. Chattel slavery was supported and made legal by European governments and monarchs.' - first response from Google...

America again makes chattle slavery legal. Using the Bible, find me a verse which would DISALLOW for it?

...if we've already established that the O.T. FORM of servitude is "allowed," even though discouraged, quite unlike in the U.S. of the 1600s to 1800s, then it seems to be a moot point. This is especially moot if you refuse to 'test' me according to a complex of studies that require one to enter into, and remain within, the Hermeneutic Circle. Are you ready to do that? I hate to ask, not so much because it's a burden for people to actually do, but because I've already asked you questions above that ... you [for the record] just blithely skipped over.

And guess what? I will hold you accountable for that recognized misstep. Make no mistake about that! Oh yeah, I'm different than the others here; not only do I want to see 'white power' diminish to a level of mere parity with all other people groups here in the U.S., but I would also like to see people of all kinds--yellow, red and black and white--keep proper Hermeneutics in their sights.

2PhiloVoid · Apr 3, 2019

cvanwey said:
(Another disclaimer: My objective, in my honesty, is really to more address the fundamentalists... You certainly do not fall within that camp So as stated prior, you are an 'enigma', or extreme outlier. Many here claim all scripture is from God, especially as proven where scripture is quoted. My 'simple' position, ultimately, is that if it can be justifiably concluded that all such verses, pertaining to 'slavery', are human created, and not God inspired, what other verses can be questioned as authentic to messages from a claimed God? Which would mean all skeptics, non-believers, and atheists are well justified in their conclusion that the Bible is no 'better' or 'worse' than any other believed upon ancient book written by past humans alone; claiming divine authority.)

But since you do not fall within this camp, we may very well be just posting replies, to no end

However, in response, I'm going to try something. Let's place your last response to the proverbial test, quite simply....

Let's see where it goes.... This is not a trick, and I actually have no agenda forthcoming. Let us instead assume a simple 'hypothetical'.

But first, let me define such a term more clearly than the Bible seems to:

A chattel slave 'is an enslaved person who is owned for ever and whose children and children's children are automatically enslaved. Chattel slaves are individuals treated as complete property, to be bought and sold. Chattel slavery was supported and made legal by European governments and monarchs.' - first response from Google...

America again makes chattle slavery legal. Using the Bible, find me a verse which would DISALLOW for it?

And with what I stated above, here's a verse that should have made some difference all along:

Isaiah 58:12.

devolved · Apr 3, 2019

cvanwey said:
The point being, since the 'beginning', humans have enslaved other humans. It still goes on today. What might be God's plan in this human 'self-discovery' process? Being that slavery will never bed considered 'bad' from the 'eye's of God'?

The entire teleological context for Israel as a theocracy, is a metaphor for our relationship with reality, God and each other.

If you remember, there was Abraham who gets the "moral direction", which gets lost in a nation that's taken over by Egypt. God frees that nation from slavery in Egypt into a more stern contractual setting of theocracy and moral concepts that these people are not used to. Part of their culture is that of being slaves to someone.

In metaphorical sense, all of us are slaves (directed by some cultural, biological, or ideological context) that drives us in a direction of destructive practices for the entire ecosystem that we live in. So, the Christian meta-narrative is that of being slaves to God, which in fact translates to being slaves to each other, which is the only way we can all collectively be free, only by submitting to each other like slaves.

Hence... the central narrative is quite the opposite of what you are trying to make it out to be. God is attempting to abolish slavery by incarnating as a human and making himself a slave, which was rather bizzare concept to his disciples who were used to the concept of dominant hierarchy... so the being who created the universe being a servant to them was an alien concept.

So... no. You are missing the bigger picture in that narrative.

cvanwey said:
God allows slavery. That is what I understand The many commandments are pretty crystal clear. Many of which state what not to do Seems odd that slavery, an institution which still goes on plenty today, (in it's many forms), will most likely continue until the 'end of days'. And in such a case, a Christian could have 'good theological reasoning' to justify such actions, absent from 'sin', as the Bible condones such practices.

The 10 commandments narrative has slavery at its heart. These actually begin with redemption from slavery in the very first commandment, which doesn't begin with "Don't have any other Gods"... but it begins with:

I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage (slavery). Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

The context of slavery is obedience to some authority that has ultimate control over your actions. I'm not going to proceed with the sermon on tropes of slavery in Biblical narrative, it should be obvious enough IMO... but the ultimate point to that narrative is that true freedom achieved in a form of "slavery" (obedience) that's congruent and symbiotic with our teleological disposition. The moment we deviate from it we tend to suffer.

To your point that slavery in the Bible gives pretext for Christians to justify slavery... should be counterbalanced by the fact that it was Christians who campaigned, fought and abolished it as institution in the US. Many risking their lives and dying in the process.

So, of course, all of the people in history will read Biblical narrative through glasses of subjective preferences, and they can justify just about anything. But you can't honestly read the entirety of the Biblical narrative and then think "yeah... I think it's telling me to buy me a slave and beat it to half-death if it disobeys me".

cvanwey said:
Not so fast. I feel this deserves further clarification....

Yes, I agree 'back then' may have been considered 'savage times.' But this is not my 'beef'...

The 'beef' is simple....

1. God allows slavery ---> then, now, and forever more, while on earth.

2. This raises a conflict, when referencing Mark 12:31. Allowing slavery, an institution in which 'most' would not want for themselves, is diametrically opposed to the 'golden rule'. Hence, there is a contradiction. Which rule gets 'over-looked' or negated? (i.e.) Slavery is not a sin, even though most people don't like it? (or) Treat others like you would want to be treated?

Ok, let's break it down:

1) See my first part of the response. I don't want to repeat myself.

2) "The golden rule" you are referencing isn't derived through one's subjective preferences. It's teleologically congruent with the rest of observable structure of reality. So, a rapist who likes being raped is not something that this rule would justify.

The context for Mark 12 is proper relationship to other people and God, which is rooted in morality congruent with reality. Read the story. The rich guy thinks he achieved ideal status, but he was shown that he didn't, because the ideal status is that of a slave to other.

So, that's the context for that reference. Judeo-Christian ideals sublimate slavery into unnecessary institution... and even in present state of human society, which is far from ideal, the slavery simply becomes cumbersome and the dominant driver of success in capitalism becomes pleasing customers. Of course there are other concepts that drag the entire system down, but that's a discussion for the other day.

Halbhh · Apr 3, 2019

InterestedAtheist said:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl2.htm

Rather than give the slave sanctuary, Paul returned him to his owner. Paul seems to hint that he would like Philemon to give Onesimus his freedom, but does not actually request it.

Paul apparently saw no evil in the concept of one person owning another as a piece of property. In his Letter to Philemon, he had every opportunity to discuss the immorality of slave-owning, but declined to do so.

Um, forgive me, but you should read that text a bit more carefully, trying to see what your eyes didn't yet.

It's in post #185 just above, and probably most people here already read through and saw what I'm pointing at, as it is very clear in the text. I even bolded it for you.

Slavery IS Regulated in the Bible!

Everything You say is Life to me

Veteran

Veteran

Everything You say is Life to me

Everything You say is Life to me

Veteran

Veteran

Gen Alpha Dad

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Everything You say is Life to me

Similar threads