Slavery, a Guide

[Tom 1]

No, I went through your answer and explained your mistakes.

No, you repeated the same things and ignored the points you couldn’t answer.

 

[Tom 1]

No, I went through your answer and explained your mistakes.

So - do you feel that the brutal slavery systems of nineteenth-century America were okay? Since you can't do anything about them, you can't possibly have a point of view on them.
I'm afraid what you say doesn't make sense.


Oh. So you think that slavery in this era was alright? Not, morally, a bad thing?
Because if you do, all you're saying is "Since they couldn't have done anything about slavery's existence, they shouldn't have tried, not even by saying (as many did in antebellum USA) that slavery might be a bad thing, but it was a necessary evil.


It would have been important in two ways that I can see. One, even if you're unable to do anything about something bad you can at least show that you understand it to be bad. And two, if the Bible did contain anti-slavery messages, then at least the antebellum USA slavers wouldn't have been able to use the Bible to justify slavery.


I've already said everything that you need to hear, assuming you have at least a passing familiarity with the Bible. Kind of you to say it's a possible argument. In fact, it's the answer to yours: the Bible is full of things it condemned as evil without actually taking particular action against them. Slavery is a glaring omission to this list. As far as we can tell, the writers of both the Old and New Testament thought that slavery was just fine.


Sorry, you're just...wrong. On several counts.
Being anti-something quite simply means you're against it. Think it's a bad thing. It may well be that taking effective action is a more morally praiseworthy stance, but that's got nothing to do with the essential issue: to be anti something means to be opposed to it. It's really quite simple.

Meaningless statements do not opposition make. By your own logic, I can only conclude that you are indeed pro slavery. As you make some vacuous statements about it but do nothing to stop it, I see nothing to distinguish your own stance from that of the writers of the OT and NT. They indicated certain practices they considered to be acceptable, you consider it acceptable to fund modern slavery, clearly you all share a similar perspective.

 

[Tom 1]

the Bible is full of things it condemned as evil without actually taking particular action against them.

You’ve said this several times - I’m offering you a lifeline here, an opportunity to make an actual argument. What common cultural, social, political practices were there in the ancient world that the bible condemns? You could construct an actual argument around that, using actual real events and things to do so.

 

[Tom 1]

So - do you feel that the brutal slavery systems of nineteenth-century America were okay? Since you can't do anything about them, you can't possibly have a point of view on them.
I'm afraid what you say doesn't make sense.

Thinking/feeling and doing something are different. To think / to feel / to act - different. Feeling hungry and thinking about food does not stop you being hungry, eating stops you being hungry. Thinking something is bad based on whatever cultural norms you have been exposed to does nothing about anything. It doesn’t mean a thing. If this idea isn’t clear to you, James lays this out quite plainly in his book, James.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Are you saying that you don’t see a difference between acceptance of a normalised social practice and being pro that practice? Does this mean that you are pro modern slavery? You accept it, you fund it - I can only conclude, by your logical equivalence of acceptance with promotion that you must be in favour of it.

Of course I see a difference. As I've explained, while I might not feel able to lead a revolution against the unfortunate excesses of capitalism, that doesn't mean I can't and don't condemn them.
So tell me: where, in the Bible, do you see anyone condemning slavery? Can you quote anything from the Bible which implies that slavery is an unfortunately necessary evil, a regrettable part of society that they can't do without?
That's the sort of evidence you need to substantiate your argument. Unfortunately, what we have is just the opposite - not just acceptance of slavery by the writers of the Bible, but support for it. As I've pointed out a number of times now.

No, you repeated the same things and ignored the points you couldn’t answer.

Looking back at what you made of Pastor Warren's response and my response to you, I have to wonder if you actually read it. In any case, I was more than patient in addressing your many mistakes.

Meaningless statements do not opposition make. By your own logic, I can only conclude that you are indeed pro slavery. As you make some vacuous statements about it but do nothing to stop it, I see nothing to distinguish your own stance from that of the writers of the OT and NT. They indicated certain practices they considered to be acceptable, you consider it acceptable to fund modern slavery, clearly you all share a similar perspective.

Of course I'm not pro slavery. And the fact that you think you can claim I am just makes me wonder whether you understand what we are talking about.

You’ve said this several times - I’m offering you a lifeline here, an opportunity to make an actual argument. What common cultural, social, political practices were there in the ancient world that the bible condemns? You could construct an actual argument around that, using actual real events and things to do so.

The argument's already been made, and I'm surprised you need it to be elaborated. If you wish, though. The Bible, on many occasions, condemns avarice, theft, lying, murder and adultery. In some cases, it takes action against them. You surely don't need me to provide you with Bible references, do you?
Although it condemns these things it says are wrong, it does not succeed in eradicating them. But at least it did condemn then, taking a moral stance, and make some attempts to take action. Therefore, we can easily say that the Bible is against murder, lying, theft, adultery and avarice. I hope this is all clear?
When it comes to slavery, however, the characters in the Bible took no action against slavery; did not even say anything to show that they saw slavery as a bad thing; and indeed, seemed to see slavery as a good thing (as can be seen by the excerpts already supplied in this thread).
You continue to try to deny that the Bible is pro-slavery, but the Bible disagrees with you.

Thinking/feeling and doing something are different. To think / to feel / to act - different. Feeling hungry and thinking about food does not stop you being hungry, eating stops you being hungry. Thinking something is bad based on whatever cultural norms you have been exposed to does nothing about anything. It doesn’t mean a thing. If this idea isn’t clear to you, James lays this out quite plainly in his book, James.

Of course thinking and doing are different. So what?
I like the way you talk about cultural norms. Are you saying - and please could you answer a direct question for once - that it was not wrong for slaves to be kidnapped, forced into service and brutally punished in Biblical times?

 

[Tom 1]

while I might not feel able to lead a revolution against the unfortunate excesses of capitalism

Did you say something about a straw man earlier?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Did you say something about a straw man earlier?

That's not a straw man. It's hyperbole: an exaggerated statement made for effect, not to be taken literally.

 

[Tom 1]

So tell me: where, in the Bible, do you see anyone condemning slavery? Can you quote anything from the Bible which implies that slavery is an unfortunately necessary evil, a regrettable part of society that they can't do without?

How many times do you need me to repeat the same thing? No, the bible does not condemn slavery - do you want me to repeat that in 10 different ways or something?

I find it hard to believe you can’t understand this. I’ll try and make it clearer.

1) You were born in a period when slavery is no longer practised, primarily due to economics. As you are no longer required to do anything about it, you can happily accept slavery in your own time and look back and condemn those in the past who practised it directly. Do you understand? We look back into the past and based on how we think now, we make judgements about what other people did then.

2) People living thousands of years ago had very different ethical concerns about a number of things, things that mean little or nothing to you or I now: why? BECAUSE OF WHEN AND WHERE WE WERE BORN. Capisch? What we think now means something to us, WHAT WE THINK NOW MEANS NOTHING TO SOMEONE WHO LIVED 3000 YEARS AGO. Do you understand, or not? If not, what don’t you understand?

Of course I'm not pro slavery. And the fact that you think you can claim I am just makes me wonder whether you understand what we are talking about

Like people in the OT and NT times, you accept that slavery is practised, the only difference being it is not practiced on your doorstep. Unlike the people portrayed in the NT, you actually fund slavery. In what way is your acceptance of slavery any different to theirs? In what way is your funding of slavery not ‘pro-slavery’? Careful - this requires actual intellectual honesty.

The Bible, on many occasions, condemns avarice, theft, lying, murder and adultery.

Well, those aren’t political/social issues as slavery was, so that is a little disappointing. But if that is what you have, it’s a starting point - why does the bible condemn those things, and not slavery? Please think it through and have a stab at an answer based on real factors rather than abstract notions.

Are you saying - and please could you answer a direct question for once - that it was not wrong for slaves to be kidnapped, forced into service and brutally punished in Biblical times?

Sure, I see it as wrong BECAUSE I WAS BORN IN THE 20th CENTURY. Do you understand? Based on what I think now, I look back and think ‘oh, that was wrong’. THIS BEARS NO RELATION WHATSOEVER TO WHAT PEOPLE THOUGHT 3000 years ago. If you don’t understand this, please explain why.

 

[Tom 1]

That's not a straw man. It's hyperbole: an exaggerated statement made for effect, not to be taken literally.

So what would be the literal negation - ‘I can’t possibly inconvenience myself in order to take any sort of action whatsoever against slavery, but believe me, I really am anti-slavery in spirit’? I’m sure that kids working in a cadmium mine would greatly appreciate your generous feelings.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

How many times do you need me to repeat the same thing? No, the bible does not condemn slavery - do you want me to repeat that in 10 different ways or something?

I'm just hoping the significance of it will dawn on you if we discuss it often enough. Once you see why it's important that the Bible does not condemn slavery and does say good things about it, you'll be able to see that the Bible has a pro-slavery position. I mean, I'm amazed anyone needs it explained to them that a book that says "you can take slaves like this, you're allowed to beat them as much as you like because they belong to you, you shall keep them for life, and (speaking to the slaves) it is good and right for you to obey your masters even if they are cruel to you..."
...
I'm amazed anyone can read that and not see it as what it is: a pro-slavery position.

1) You were born in a period when slavery is no longer practised, primarily due to economics. As you are no longer required to do anything about it, you can happily accept slavery in your own time and look back and condemn those in the past who practised it directly. Do you understand? We look back into the past and based on how we think now, we make judgements about what other people did then.

What an absurd argument. So the people who were born when slavery was extensively practised - say, the nineteenth century - they should not have objected to it? They should have accepted that it was "just the way things were"?
The more you try to defend the Bible, the closer you get the the arguments of those Christians - like Pastor Warren - who defended slavery. You claim to despise him, but you and he are on the same side, with some very similar sentiments.

2) People living thousands of years ago had very different ethical concerns about a number of things, things that mean little or nothing to you or I now: why? BECAUSE OF WHEN AND WHERE WE WERE BORN. Capisch? What we think now means something to us, WHAT WE THINK NOW MEANS NOTHING TO SOMEONE WHO LIVED 3000 YEARS AGO. Do you understand, or not? If not, what don’t you understand?

OF course I understand. It's extremely simple. People lived in different times and thought different things. Now do you understand that they were wrong to enslave others? That taking people against their will and forcing you to serve them on pain of punishment or execution os a bad thing to do, no matter what period in history you are living in? Or do you not agree? Do you think that the slavers in Biblical times were acting in a morally acceptable manner?

Like people in the OT and NT times, you accept that slavery is practised, the only difference being it is not practiced on your doorstep. Unlike the people portrayed in the NT, you actually fund slavery. In what way is your acceptance of slavery any different to theirs? In what way is your funding of slavery not ‘pro-slavery’? Careful - this requires actual intellectual honesty.

I'm fine with intellectual honesty, thank you. To answer your question, my acceptance of the "slavery" practised in our times is different to theirs in that I recognise that slavery is wrong, even if I am not in a position to do anything about it. Why, isn't that the way you see things too?

Well, those aren’t political/social issues as slavery was, so that is a little disappointing. But if that is what you have, it’s a starting point - why does the bible condemn those things, and not slavery? Please think it through and have a stab at an answer based on real factors rather than abstract notions.

I imagine the Bible condemns avarice, lust, murder and theft because these are things that directly threaten the group itself, whereas slavery is a more abstract practice, only hurting "other" people not inside the society. Why, do you have a different answer? And for that matter, do you now get the point, that the Bible often condemns things as sinful without necessarily having to eradicate them from society?
You seem to think that I am asking why nowhere in the Bible did people not take the step of wiping out slavery. What backward thinking! I'm asking why nobody in the Bible criticised slavery. The answer, of course, is that they saw it as a good thing.

Sure, I see it as wrong BECAUSE I WAS BORN IN THE 20th CENTURY. Do you understand? Based on what I think now, I look back and think ‘oh, that was wrong’. THIS BEARS NO RELATION WHATSOEVER TO WHAT PEOPLE THOUGHT 3000 years ago. If you don’t understand this, please explain why.

Of course I understand. What I don't understand is what you think of the people who lived three thousand years ago. You say that kidnapping, enslaving and torturing people is wrong. Good for you! Does that mean that you think the people who did this three thousand years ago were acting immorally?

So what would be the literal negation - ‘I can’t possibly inconvenience myself in order to take any sort of action whatsoever against slavery, but believe me, I really am anti-slavery in spirit’? I’m sure that kids working in a cadmium mine would greatly appreciate your generous feelings.

Dramatic flourishes aside, I'm glad you've now grasped the point: that one can be opposed to something even though unable to take direct action against it. I ask, then: were the writers of the Bible / God / Jesus opposed to slavery, even though they did not see it as their mission to wipe it out? You've said that the Bible does not condemn slavery (and not saying "kidnapping and torturing people into service is bad" is bad enough!) but do you think they saw it as a bad thing, whether they actively opposed it or not?

 

[Tom 1]

Does that mean that you think the people who did this three thousand years ago were acting immorally?

Please go back and answer the questions I’ve put to you. Why for example you don’t consider the moral obligation to offer shelter to strangers to be higher than almost any other. That has the potential to lead to something other than you constantly repeating the same stuff. To provide another repeated answer to your repeated question, yes according to the moral considerations considered important when and where I live, the actions of the entire ancient world with few exceptions and well into the Middle Ages and, in many cases, up until the modern age were immoral. According to the morals of the ancient period, those actions were not immoral, but some of the things we simply take for granted we’re indeed considered to be serious, sometimes criminal, breaches of ethical codes. Please explain exactly what it is you don’t understand about it. Saying ‘I understand’ but then demonstrating over and over again that you don’t means - surprise surprise - that you don’t understand.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Sure, I see it as wrong BECAUSE I WAS BORN IN THE 20th CENTURY. Do you understand? Based on what I think now, I look back and think ‘oh, that was wrong’. THIS BEARS NO RELATION WHATSOEVER TO WHAT PEOPLE THOUGHT 3000 years ago. If you don’t understand this, please explain why.

But this is an important question - and I'm afraid you haven't answered it.
Would you mind doing so?
I asked, was it wrong for slaves to be kidnapped, forced into service and brutally punished in Biblical times?
You answered that you "see it as wrong" but that "they didn't see it as wrong."
But that wasn't my question.
Tell me, please: was it actually a wrong thing for them to do?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Why for example you don’t consider the moral obligation to offer shelter to strangers to be higher than almost any other.

Of course I do. I mean, I can imagine higher ones, but it's very important to me to help people in trouble. If I can, of course.

 

[Tom 1]

I imagine the Bible condemns avarice, lust, murder and theft because these are things that directly threaten the group itself, whereas slavery is a more abstract practice, only hurting "other" people not inside the society.

Ok, albeit superficial you are at least glancing in the right direction. Develop that idea and you might, possibly, begin to arrive at an understanding of the thinking of a different community at a different time. That in turn has some potential, if you are able to stick with it, to lead to an understanding of why. This has the potential of transporting you from the self-congratulatory world of frivolous virtue signalling towards an actual understanding of the world.

 

[Tom 1]

Of course I do. I mean, I can imagine higher ones, but it's very important to me to help people in trouble. If I can, of course.

You’re not answering the question.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Ok, albeit superficial you are at least glancing in the right direction. Develop that idea and you might, possibly, begin to arrive at an understanding of the thinking of a different community at a different time. That in turn has some potential, if you are able to stick with it, to lead to an understanding of why. This has the potential of transporting you from the self-congratulatory world of frivolous virtue signalling towards an actual understanding of the world.

Such a lot of fuss trying to convince you that a book that gives advice and recommendations about how to enslave people is in favour of doing so.

 

[Tom 1]

But this is an important question - and I'm afraid you haven't answered it.
Would you mind doing so?
I asked, was it wrong for slaves to be kidnapped, forced into service and brutally punished in Biblical times?
You answered that you "see it as wrong" but that "they didn't see it as wrong."
But that wasn't my question.
Tell me, please: was it actually a wrong thing for them to do?

According to me it is. So what? You may believe yourself to be the arbiter of the universe, I don’t.

 

[Tom 1]

Such a lot of fuss trying to convince you that a book that gives advice and recommendations about how to enslave people is in favour of doing so.

Answer the question - in what way is your acceptance and funding of slavery, in the 21st C no less, different?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

You’re not answering the question.

How so? You asked me why I didn't think it was important to shelter strangers, and I said I did.

 

[Tom 1]

Such a lot of fuss trying to convince you that a book that gives advice and recommendations about how to enslave people is in favour of doing so.

Uh no I never said at any point that the bible is anti-slavery. I never indicated in the remotest sense anything of the sort. My point is that your reasoning is so mind-bogglingly superficial it literally makes my hair stand up.