Conflict of Conscience vs Scripture

[Tree of Life]

Slavery: to own human beings and consider them your private property, to the point where you can buy and sell them and where your off spring can even inherit them. And where the slave does not have the freedom to leave.

Slaves are never regarded as being owned by their masters in Scripture. People - especially Israelites - belong to God. They may serve as slaves for a time, but this slavery cannot be permanent and it is highly regulated.

How scripture speaks in favor of it? It says "do it" and it even regulates the practice, explaining in disturbing detail who you can enslave, how to buy them, how to enslave them for life, how to pass them on to off spring, how and to what extent you can beat them, etc.

Didn't you read the OT?

I have, but I'm not sure that you have. Nowhere is the practice of slavery commanded in the OT. It is highly regulated, however. Just like other fallen-world realities like divorce were regulated. Do you know the difference between apodictic law and casuistic law?

 

[Tree of Life]

Because if the bible were anti-slavery, there would be no need for all these rules and things...
Instead of all that, it would simply state: "thou shall not keep slaves" and leave it at that.

Again, many first century Christians were slaves. Should Paul command them to stop being slaves? No. He gives helpful and realistic instructions on how to live for people who are in tough situations.

 

[Rivga]

I have, but I'm not sure that you have. Nowhere is the practice of slavery commanded in the OT. It is highly regulated, however. Just like other fallen-world realities like divorce were regulated. Do you know the difference between apodictic law and casuistic law?

So God in the full knowledge that later on, these passages would be used to justify the slavery of 10-12 million slaves from Africa, was not able to send a message to someone to let them know that actually "Not a fan of slavery guys, can someone write it down for future reference?"

If I wrote a book, and stated "when you murder someone make sure you stab them in the face 3 times using only a blessed knife". and "if that person lives you cannot go an kill him again but his wife and children are fair game!"
If I then used the excuse - I did not tell anyone to murder people, I was simply regulating Murder.

Seriously Tree I think you are splitting hairs here, and simply being intellectually dishonest.

Slaves are never regarded as being owned by their masters in Scripture. People - especially Israelites - belong to God.

So according the Bible we all belong to God and therefore there has never been slavery? in the history of the world. Am I missing something? have is misrepresented you - if I have please correct me. I have no desire to play Strawman.

but this slavery cannot be permanent and it is highly regulated.

Actually that is wrong, as if the slave is married and has children, after the time period is over if he wants to stay with his wife and children he is then a slave forever.
Your wife and child or your freedom - I'd hate to see what rules would exist if God was not all loving.
Whilst he has the choice not much of a choice is it.

 

[Par5]

Slaves are never regarded as being owned by their masters in Scripture. People - especially Israelites - belong to God. They may serve as slaves for a time, but this slavery cannot be permanent and it is highly regulated.



I have, but I'm not sure that you have. Nowhere is the practice of slavery commanded in the OT. It is highly regulated, however. Just like other fallen-world realities like divorce were regulated. Do you know the difference between apodictic law and casuistic law?

So slaves are never regarded as being owned by their masters in scripture? I wonder what book I have been reading then?
Exodus 21:20-21 20If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. 21If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I don't see how these Scriptures are pro-slavery.

The first is instructions for how Christian slaves ought to live. There were many slaves in the Greco Roman world who became Christians. They needed to know how to live. So Paul gives them instruction.

The second is case law for how people should be punished for sexual activity with slaves. It does not positively command or condone slavery.

The third is a restriction on Hebrew debt-slavery. No matter the size of the debt, the slavery could only last 6 years.

How are those laws and instructions pro slavery?

The OT laws acknowledged slavery as a widespread cultural practice and set boundaries for Israel to follow regarding it.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So God in the full knowledge that later on, these passages would be used to justify the slavery of 10-12 million slaves from Africa, was not able to send a message to someone to let them know that actually "Not a fan of slavery guys, can someone write it down for future reference?"

If I wrote a book, and stated "when you murder someone make sure you stab them in the face 3 times using only a blessed knife". and "if that person lives you cannot go an kill him again but his wife and children are fair game!"
If I then used the excuse - I did not tell anyone to murder people, I was simply regulating Murder.

Seriously Tree I think you are splitting hairs here, and simply being intellectually dishonest.




So according the Bible we all belong to God and therefore there has never been slavery? in the history of the world. Am I missing something? have is misrepresented you - if I have please correct me. I have no desire to play Strawman.




Actually that is wrong, as if the slave is married and has children, after the time period is over if he wants to stay with his wife and children he is then a slave forever.
Your wife and child or your freedom - I'd hate to see what rules would exist if God was not all loving.
Whilst he has the choice not much of a choice is it.

I think you are conflating slavery in ancient Israel with the 'curse of Canaan'. Two different subjects.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I find that concept difficult to reconcile. God commanded the destruction of townships including women and children. he wiped out the whole world in a flood because of the mis-deeds of some - even innocent children. To say it wasnt murder is walking a very fine line and would be tough to discern what the difference between murder and god doing it AKA execution. I do find it is "Dont do that thing that Im allowed to do"

In Noah's day everything was corrupted; the people, the animals, the land, and even the kids.

 

[Zoii]

In Noah's day everything was corrupted; the people, the animals, the land, and even the kids.

I dont understand that at all - how can you say an animal was corrupted or the land was corrupted. How can you say all people were corrupted - and if what you say is true then why did he maintain two of all the species if they were so corrupted. I find it very difficult to move past the fact that God had committed a genocide of epic proportions that is at odds with his own commandment.

 

[Par5]

In Noah's day everything was corrupted; the people, the animals, the land, and even the kids.

What does a corrupted cow look like? What does it do to become corrupted?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I don't have a problem with ancient debt slavery per se.

I'm not talking about "debt slavery". And neither is the bible.
I'm talking about actual slavery.

The owning and treating of human beings as private property, as goods that can be bought, sold and inherited by off spring, stripped from the freedom to leave.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Slaves are never regarded as being owned by their masters in Scripture. People - especially Israelites - belong to God. They may serve as slaves for a time, but this slavery cannot be permanent and it is highly regulated.

This is simply false. Leviticus 25:

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.

As for Israelites, there's a loophole there as well. If you give your israelite slave a wife, then when the Israelite slave is to be set free after 7 years that slave gets to choose:
- either he goes free and abbandons his wife and kids (his wife and kids = your property)
- he agrees to remain your slave forever so that he can stay with his wife.

If the later, you take him in public and pierce his ear and he's now your slave for life (and can be passed on to off spring through inheritance if you die first).

You should read your bible.

I have,

Then read it again. Clearly you didn't pay much attention or don't remember well, as I have shown above.

Nowhere is the practice of slavery commanded in the OT.

I didn't say it was.
Nowhere is it forbidden either. There is no commandment that says "thou shall not keep slaves". Which, frankly, would have been the only morally and ethically acceptable mention of slavery in a book that professes to be the "good news".

It is highly regulated, however. Just like other fallen-world realities like divorce were regulated. Do you know the difference between apodictic law and casuistic law?

I don't care.

Contrary to you, I don't feel like there is a "context" where treating human beings as your personal property is morally or ethically justifiable. Ever.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Again, many first century Christians were slaves. Should Paul command them to stop being slaves? No. He gives helpful and realistic instructions on how to live for people who are in tough situations.

Up until a century ago, christians were also slave owners, waving their bibles.

Give me break.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The OT laws acknowledged slavery as a widespread cultural practice and set boundaries for Israel to follow regarding it.

Another widespread cultural practice, were bisexual orgies.
But somehow God didn't need to accomodate for that and just instructed to kill those who have homosexual sex.

He's God!

Why on earth would he bother with the puny cultural barbarism of puny sinful humans. If he can tell you not to eat shrimp, not to steal and not to have homosexual sex, he sure as hell can tell you not to own and treat humans as if they are nothing but products!

 

[Tom 1]

A question for Theists, given the Scriptures of most of the major religions are old and given that morality* has moved on since most of the scriptures were wrote.

How do you bridge the gap between what is clearly in the your scriptures and your Conscience?

For example Homosexuality - whilst I realise a lot of Theists still disagree with this and there is no conflict between Scripture and Conscience for them, but for many Theists in the west there is clearly a conflict (see Ireland historic vote).
Or another easy example is Slavery, which is significantly less divisive than homosexuality, now but it was not at a certain point.



*this is an assertion, but one based on evidence of the change in societal behaviours, Laws, justice systems, you get the picture.

Depends what your definition of moral is - to insert my own definition for the purposes of this post, I would say that morality with regard to the 2 examples you give would mean what is the greatest good for the persons involved? Ultimately the greatest good for any person is to have a relationship with God in this life and the next. This however can involve a lot of painful and difficult challenges. The most basic question that raises is, is a thing bad because is feels bad, because it causes a great many painful challenges, or are those things good because they lead to an outcome otherwise unobtainable? In the example of slavery for example, while the OT laws around slavery are complex and ultimately mostly a kind of ‘last chance’ for people in dire financial need (too much to sum up here but I’d suggest working through the relevant passages in Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy as objectively as you can, mapping the whole thing out), in NT times the situation was a lot worse. For an individual slave who became a Christian was it better to rebel against the law or put up with bad treatment? A difficult, and very personal question. For a Christian slave owner what would the questions of conscience be? Certainly framed very differently than they would be in the mind of a 21C person, but would still require some serious rethinking in comparison to social norms at the time.

 

[DogmaHunter]

What does a corrupted cow look like? What does it do to become corrupted?

Or a corrupted baby or toddler, for that matter........

 

[Tom 1]

So God in the full knowledge that later on, these passages would be used to justify the slavery of 10-12 million slaves from Africa, was not able to send a message to someone to let them know that actually "Not a fan of slavery guys, can someone write it down for future reference?"

That really needs some thinking through..it is the responsibility of all human beings to learn about God, continually develop their understanding of who he is, walk in his ways in a continual process of learning, involve him in all things, and help others to do the same. Everything we need to know to make the world a better place is in that process - but this kind of discussion that tends to isolate particular elements of that, as if they were not part of a much wider whole, is just one example (among many) of how we fail to do that.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That really needs some thinking through..it is the responsibility of all human beings to learn about God, continually develop their understanding of who he is, walk in his ways in a continual process of learning, involve him in all things, and help others to do the same. Everything we need to know to make the world a better place is in there - but this kind of discussion that tends to isolate particular elements of that, as if they were not part of a much wider whole, is just one example (among many) of how we fail to do that.

What "wider whole" could possible exist where the practice of slavery (ie: the treating and owning of other human beings as personal, private property) is morally justified?

 

[Tom 1]

What "wider whole" could possible exist where the practice of slavery (ie: the treating and owning of other human beings as personal, private property) is morally justified?

Mate, you are just shouting into a bucket. Anyone can go on a moralising rant fest, it means nothing at all. Create an alternative universe in which complicated issues among sentient, emotional beings never arise and you have a perfect (practical, proven) answer for everything, and I’ll start listening to you.

 

[Norbert L]

A question for Theists, given the Scriptures of most of the major religions are old and given that morality* has moved on since most of the scriptures were wrote.

How do you bridge the gap between what is clearly in the your scriptures and your Conscience?

For example Homosexuality - whilst I realise a lot of Theists still disagree with this and there is no conflict between Scripture and Conscience for them, but for many Theists in the west there is clearly a conflict (see Ireland historic vote).
Or another easy example is Slavery, which is significantly less divisive than homosexuality, now but it was not at a certain point.



*this is an assertion, but one based on evidence of the change in societal behaviours, Laws, justice systems, you get the picture.

The same thing happens to Atheists, look at what the Communist movement did within this world last century. Their social behavior, Laws, justice systems certainly gave us a picture. I think division within a belief system needs to be recognized that it's not unique to Theists alone. It's also something that can be examined for either an individual level or a group level. It's also not new to mankind in general, just look at the underlining ramification of an observation made 2000 years ago in Jude 1:12.

So how do I bridge the gap? I try to be objective and distinguish between the present and historical context of mankind. Knowing that I won't necessarily agree with a group consensus on specific subjects just because we have the same label.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Mate, you are just shouting into a bucket.

I don't think so.... Instead, I'm talking about very clear language used in a religious book which is held up by its followers as THE book and THE source and THE standard of moral behaviour... while that book, instead of flat out saying do not consider people as being your personal private property, actually just regulates and condones the practice of slavery.

I don't see how anyone can marry that with the idea that this book is somehow our manual on "how to live" or our source of morals / ethics, or a moral standard by itself or whatever.

I'm genuinly asking: is there ANY context, ANY circumstance that you can imagine, where it would EVER be morally justifed to treat other human beings as your private property that you can buy, sell and pass on to off spring as "inheritance"?

It's an honest question. It's fine if your answer is "no", but then just own up to that. And acknowledge that your bible disagrees.

Anyone can go on a moralising rant fest, it means nothing at all.

When the subject of discussion is a book that is being held up as THE source / standard of what is to be considered moral behaviour, I'ld say that it means a WHOLE LOT to point out that the book has no issues with the practice of slavery....

Neither would I call that a "moralising rant".

Instead, I would call it a very very correct, moral and ethical objection to calling this book "THE source/standard of morality".

Create an alternative universe in which complicated issues among sentient, emotional beings never arise and you have a perfect (practical, proven) answer for everything, and I’ll start listening to you.

LOL!

Right, right..... because a completely perfect universe with completely perfectly moral sentient beings is the only possible alternative to a rule that says "hey, don't keep slaves!"

That's truelly ... I can't use the word that I would like to on this forum.

It's easy, really....
If this God can command people not to kill, steal, eat shrimp, engage in homosexual sex etc.... he sure as heck can command people not to own and treat other people as their private property!

I'm sorry, but there really is no excuse.
I get it though. It must be difficult to admit that it condones one of the most immoral practices that human kind has ever engaged in.