Slavery, a Guide

[InterestedAtheist]

Anyway, just bumping this up...
Look at the writings of the Civil War and pre-Civil War preachers. It's clear to see that the pro-slavery writers had the Bible on their side, and anti-slavery writers had the moral high ground on their side - but not the Bible.
Here's another one that makes interesting reading. Some twenty years before Pastor Warren, and the writing style is a little denser, but again, it makes a clear case for the Bible being pro-slavery.

Furman University: Richard Furman's Exposition

Some excerpts:
Page 7:
In the New-Testament, the Gospel History, or representation of facts, presents us a view correspondent with that, which is furnished by other authentic ancient histories of the state of the world at the commencement of Christianity. The powerful Romans had succeeded, in empire, the polished Greeks; and under both empires, the countries they possessed and governed were full of slaves. Many of these with their masters, were converted to the Christian Faith, and received, together with them into the Christian Church, while it was yet under the ministry of the inspired Apostles. In things purely spiritual, they appear to have enjoyed equal privileges; but their relationship, as masters and slaves, was not dissolved. Their respective duties are strictly enjoined. The masters are not required to emancipate their slaves; but to give them the things that are just and equal, forbearing threatening; and to remember, they also have a master in Heaven. The "servants under the yoke" *[upo zugon Douloi: bond-servants, or slaves. Doulos, is the proper term for slaves; it is here in the plural and rendered more expressive by being connected with yoke---UNDER THE YOKE.] (bond-servants or slaves) mentioned by Paul to Timothy, as having "believing masters," are not authorized by him to demand of them emancipation, or to employ violent means to obtain it; but are directed to "account their masters worthy of all honour," and "not to despise them, because they were brethren" in religion; "but the rather to do them service, because they were faithful and beloved partakers of the Christian benefit." Similar directions are given by him in other places, and by other Apostles. And it gives great weight to the argument, that in this place, Paul follows his directions concerning servants with a charge to Timothy, as an Evangelist, to teach and exhort men to observe this doctrine.

Page 8:
Had the holding of slaves been a moral evil, it cannot be supposed, that the inspired Apostles, who feared not the faces of men, and were ready to lay down their lives in the cause of their God, would have tolerated it, for a moment, in the Christian Church. If they had done so on a principle of accommodation, in cases where the masters remained heathen, to avoid offences and civil commotion; yet, surely, where both master and servant were Christian, as in the case before us, they would have enforced the law of Christ, and required, that the master should liberate his slave in the first instance. But, instead of this, they let the relationship remain untouched, as being lawful and right, and insist on the relative duties.

 

[Tom 1]

Anyway, just bumping this up...
Look at the writings of the Civil War and pre-Civil War preachers. It's clear to see that the pro-slavery writers had the Bible on their side, and anti-slavery writers had the moral high ground on their side - but not the Bible.
Here's another one that makes interesting reading. Some twenty years before Pastor Warren, and the writing style is a little denser, but again, it makes a clear case for the Bible being pro-slavery.

Furman University: Richard Furman's Exposition

Some excerpts:
Page 7:
In the New-Testament, the Gospel History, or representation of facts, presents us a view correspondent with that, which is furnished by other authentic ancient histories of the state of the world at the commencement of Christianity. The powerful Romans had succeeded, in empire, the polished Greeks; and under both empires, the countries they possessed and governed were full of slaves. Many of these with their masters, were converted to the Christian Faith, and received, together with them into the Christian Church, while it was yet under the ministry of the inspired Apostles. In things purely spiritual, they appear to have enjoyed equal privileges; but their relationship, as masters and slaves, was not dissolved. Their respective duties are strictly enjoined. The masters are not required to emancipate their slaves; but to give them the things that are just and equal, forbearing threatening; and to remember, they also have a master in Heaven. The "servants under the yoke" *[upo zugon Douloi: bond-servants, or slaves. Doulos, is the proper term for slaves; it is here in the plural and rendered more expressive by being connected with yoke---UNDER THE YOKE.] (bond-servants or slaves) mentioned by Paul to Timothy, as having "believing masters," are not authorized by him to demand of them emancipation, or to employ violent means to obtain it; but are directed to "account their masters worthy of all honour," and "not to despise them, because they were brethren" in religion; "but the rather to do them service, because they were faithful and beloved partakers of the Christian benefit." Similar directions are given by him in other places, and by other Apostles. And it gives great weight to the argument, that in this place, Paul follows his directions concerning servants with a charge to Timothy, as an Evangelist, to teach and exhort men to observe this doctrine.

Page 8:
Had the holding of slaves been a moral evil, it cannot be supposed, that the inspired Apostles, who feared not the faces of men, and were ready to lay down their lives in the cause of their God, would have tolerated it, for a moment, in the Christian Church. If they had done so on a principle of accommodation, in cases where the masters remained heathen, to avoid offences and civil commotion; yet, surely, where both master and servant were Christian, as in the case before us, they would have enforced the law of Christ, and required, that the master should liberate his slave in the first instance. But, instead of this, they let the relationship remain untouched, as being lawful and right, and insist on the relative duties.

I hate to burst your bubble, but the bible is no more pro-slavery that you are. Less so, in fact, as every time you hand over your money for a smartphone or some other device you are in effect saying 'my convenience is more important that the right of a child not to work 12 hours a day in toxic conditions so my phone can have a battery'. The bible, as you may be aware, does not specify that people should contribute financially to promote the practice of slave labour - so look, well done, you're one up on the bible!

Ask pretty much anyone in a developed nation if they are 'anti-slavery' and they will answer in the affirmative. What the majority of people mean by this is 'I feel bad when I see bad things happening to people on the telly'. Some people actually are anti-slavery - they take active steps to reduce the reliance the world still has on slave labour. Most people however are quite happy to accept that their lifestyle is supported by slave labour, and rarely if ever give it a second thought.

Slavery has been part of human civilisation for the entirety of human history, and probably stretches back into prehistory in one form or another. For various reasons, primarily driven by the fact of being a collection of nations stable and well-enough established to function without slave labour, the direct, in country, use of slave labour was outlawed in developed nations back at the end of the 19th C. For some reason I am not able to comprehend, many people assume that merely by being born in on of these countries, and taking no further action, they are 'anti-slavery'.

As reiterated numerous times in this thread already the bible is not anti-slavery. Slavery barely gets a mention, although you appear to think it is a central theme in some way, it is mentioned only a handful of times. Slavery was simply an accepted practice at the time both the OT and the NT were written, as it had been for as long as anyone knows and for thousands of years afterwards. The OT includes guidelines intended to promote the welfare and success of the Hebrew nation - this hasn't changed at any point, this is what the OT was about 3,000 years ago and what it is about now - yet for some reason you appear to believe that the OT ought to have contained provisions for Israel to be a counter-cultural bastion of non-slavery in the ancient world. Why? How? Despite making no attempt to present any sort of coherent argument for this idea beyond the basic 'I feel bad when I see bad stuff on the telly' approach, you appear to believe you are making some kind of point. Please explain, without 'just because' statements please. The NT presents guidelines for a church community and individual living - individual living including the injunction to act in a Christlike manner regardless of the circumstances of your life. I'll try and make this sentence as clear as it can be: there is nothing in the NT that advocates trying to change or overthrow the political and regulatory norms of life at the time. Is that clear enough?

That leaves the following argument:

I am not anti-slavery, I do nothing at all about modern day slavery, but I feel bad when I see stuff about what people did in the past on telly. I have no understanding of the ancient world or the bible, but I think it should have been an anti-slavery book.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I hate to burst your bubble, but the bible is no more pro-slavery that you are.

I hate to burst your bubble, but we've already had the ultimate proof, played out in the nineteenth century: the people who were in favour of slavery used the Bible to justify their views with chapter and verse; and the people who were opposed to slavery could not. You still haven't managed to point out the errors in Pastor Warren's sermon on slavery. I'm afraid slinging insults at it just makes you look like you have no arguments to make; after all, how can you argue with what the Bible itself says?

Less so, in fact, as every time you hand over your money for a smartphone or some other device you are in effect saying 'my convenience is more important than the right of a child not to work 12 hours a day in toxic conditions so my phone can have a battery'.

Uh-huh. I can see you enjoy this little story, but didn't you see I answered it already?

The bible, as you may be aware, does not specify that people should contribute financially to promote the practice of slave labour - so look, well done, you're one up on the bible!

The Bible says it's okay to capture, keep, own, punish and sell slaves. I've never said that is okay, and I trust you haven't either. Look - both of us are one up on the Bible!

Ask pretty much anyone in a developed nation if they are 'anti-slavery' and they will answer in the affirmative. What the majority of people mean by this is 'I feel bad when I see bad things happening to people on the telly'.

True enough. But take your thinking a little further. Let's see...

Some people actually are anti-slavery - they take active steps to reduce the reliance the world still has on slave labour. Most people however are quite happy to accept that their lifestyle is supported by slave labour, and rarely if ever give it a second thought.

Follow that idea, now. You say they don't give it a second thought. Sadly true. If they were to give it a second thought, they would probably see it as slavery, and realise that it is almost as bad as the classic forms of slavery we saw in antebellum America. Well, the forms of slavery practised in the Bible were as bad as this, or worse. The Bible, in both Old and New Testaments takes plenty of time to call out wickedness in the world. Lust, greed, theft, murder, idolatry. But when it comes to slavery - well, as you said, the Bible rarely gives it a second thought. But you know that kidnapping people, forcing them to serve for life and beating them brutally is wrong, right?
Good. You're doing better than the Bible. I really don't know how much simpler I can make this.

Slavery has been part of human civilisation for the entirety of human history, and probably stretches back into prehistory in one form or another. For various reasons, primarily driven by the fact of being a collection of nations stable and well-enough established enough to function without slave labour, the direct, in country, use of slave labour was outlawed in developed nations back at the end of the 19th C.

Ironic that you end up arguing on the pro-slavery side. I guess that's what happens when you defend the Bible. Good thing the Underground Railroad didn't agree with you that countries should be allowed to keep slavery as long as they needed it to function.

For some reason I am not able to comprehend, many people assume that merely by being born in on of these countries, and taking no further action, they are 'anti-slavery'.

Do you think slavery is a bad thing? Good. That makes you anti-slavery. Did the Bible think slavery was a bad thing? No. That makes it pro-slavery. This isn't a difficult concept to grasp.

As reiterated numerous times in this thread already the bible is not anti-slavery.

What, with all those things it says about how you should conduct the practice of slavery and how slaves should obey their masters? No, I suppose it isn't.

Slavery barely gets a mention, although you appear to think it is a central theme in some way, it is mentioned a handful of times.

As I said earlier - and it's still true - the Bible may not be a book about slavery, but it does touch on it more than a few times; quite enough to reveal to us its attitude. Why are you so surprised? As you yourself pointed out, many times, slavery was quite the norm in those times. So it's quite natural to see that the Bible was in favour of it.

Slavery was simply an accepted practice at the time both the OT and the NT were written, as it had been for as long as anyone knows and for thousands of years afterwards.

See how defending the Bible has also made you a defender of the institution of slavery? "Slavery was an accepted practice for thousands of years," the slaveowners would say. "Why change now?"

The OT includes guidelines intended to promote the welfare and success of the Hebrew nation - this hasn't changed at any point, this is what the OT was about 3,000 years ago and what it is about now - yet for some reason you appear to believe that the OT ought to have contained provisions for Israel to be a counter-cultural bastion of non-slavery in the ancient world. Why? How?

All I said was the self-evident fact that the Bible, in both the Old and New Testament, approves of slavery. If you or I were to travel back in time and see the Biblical practice of slavery, we would rightly consider it inhuman. That doesn't necessarily mean we'd lead a social revolution, or go around the country slaughtering slaveowners, but we would certainly disapprove of it, wouldn't we?
And so, we are morally superior to whoever wrote the different parts of the Bible. It's really quite simple, but I don't blame you for not wanting to face it.

Despite making no attempt to present any sort of coherent argument for this idea beyond the basic 'I feel bad when I see bad stuff on the telly' approach, you appear to believe you are making some kind of point.

Despite making no attempt to present any sort of coherent argument for your idea beyond the basic 'you're wrong and I don't need to explain why' approach, you appear to believe you are making some kind of point.

Please explain, without 'just because' statements please.

I'm not sure I can make it any simpler and more clearly referenced than I have already.

I'll try and make this sentence as clear as it can be: there is nothing in the NT that advocates trying to change or overthrow the political and regulatory norms of life at the time. Is that clear enough?

So, your thesis is that of course slavery is a bad thing and naturally Jesus and His followers would have realised that, but overthrowing slavery was not on their agenda, right?
A few problems. First of all, who said anything about overthrowing slavery? The Bible, in both Old and New Testaments, criticised and decried many things without necessarily making attempts to eradicate them. Slavery, on the other hand, they never said a word against. You've made the point about the "slavery" in capitalism today, but you've undermined your own argument. I may not be leading a revolution against the slave labour practices of the twenty-first century, but I am happy to say that they are cruel and inhumane. Jesus and his followers, on the other hand, not only didn't speak out against enslaving other humans, they went out of their way to promote and encourage slavery, telling slaves to work hard and well for their masters, even those who treated them cruelly.

I am not anti-slavery, I do nothing at all about modern day slavery, but I feel bad when I see stuff about what people did in the past on telly. I have no understanding of the ancient world or the bible, but I think it should have been an anti-slavery book.

If all you can do is strawman, that's an admission of defeat. And not the first we've had from you on this thread. How long is it going to take you, I wonder, to run out of excuses for a book that says it's okay to capture people, keep them for life, own them, force them to work for you, punish them brutally as you wish, and that speaks out against slave revolts?

 

[Tom 1]

I hate to burst your bubble, but we've already had the ultimate proof, played out in the nineteenth century: the people who were in favour of slavery used the Bible to justify their views with chapter and verse; and the people who were opposed to slavery could not. You still haven't managed to point out the errors in Pastor Warren's sermon on slavery. I'm afraid slinging insults at it just makes you look like you have no arguments to make; after all, how can you argue with what the Bible itself says?

Uh-huh. I can see you enjoy this little story, but didn't you see I answered it already?

The Bible says it's okay to capture, keep, own, punish and sell slaves. I've never said that is okay, and I trust you haven't either. Look - both of us are one up on the Bible!

True enough. But take your thinking a little further. Let's see...

Follow that idea, now. You say they don't give it a second thought. Sadly true. If they were to give it a second thought, they would probably see it as slavery, and realise that it is almost as bad as the classic forms of slavery we saw in antebellum America. Well, the forms of slavery practised in the Bible were as bad as this, or worse. The Bible, in both Old and New Testaments takes plenty of time to call out wickedness in the world. Lust, greed, theft, murder, idolatry. But when it comes to slavery - well, as you said, the Bible rarely gives it a second thought. But you know that kidnapping people, forcing them to serve for life and beating them brutally is wrong, right?
Good. You're doing better than the Bible. I really don't know how much simpler I can make this.

Ironic that you end up arguing on the pro-slavery side. I guess that's what happens when you defend the Bible. Good thing the Underground Railroad didn't agree with you that countries should be allowed to keep slavery as long as they needed it to function.

Do you think slavery is a bad thing? Good. That makes you anti-slavery. Did the Bible think slavery was a bad thing? No. That makes it pro-slavery. This isn't a difficult concept to grasp.

What, with all those things it says about how you should conduct the practice of slavery and how slaves should obey their masters? No, I suppose it isn't.

As I said earlier - and it's still true - the Bible may not be a book about slavery, but it does touch on it more than a few times; quite enough to reveal to us its attitude. Why are you so surprised? As you yourself pointed out, many times, slavery was quite the norm in those times. So it's quite natural to see that the Bible was in favour of it.


See how defending the Bible has also made you a defender of the institution of slavery? "Slavery was an accepted practice for thousands of years," the slaveowners would say. "Why change now?"


All I said was the self-evident fact that the Bible, in both the Old and New Testament, approves of slavery. If you or I were to travel back in time and see the Biblical practice of slavery, we would rightly consider it inhuman. That doesn't necessarily mean we'd lead a social revolution, or go around the country slaughtering slaveowners, but we would certainly disapprove of it, wouldn't we?
And so, we are morally superior to whoever wrote the different parts of the Bible. It's really quite simple, but I don't blame you for not wanting to face it.


Despite making no attempt to present any sort of coherent argument for your idea beyond the basic 'you're wrong and I don't need to explain why' approach, you appear to believe you are making some kind of point.


I'm not sure I can make it any simpler and more clearly referenced than I have already.


So, your thesis is that of course slavery is a bad thing and naturally Jesus and His followers would have realised that, but overthrowing slavery was not on their agenda, right?
A few problems. First of all, who said anything about overthrowing slavery? The Bible, in both Old and New Testaments, criticised and decried many things without necessarily making attempts to eradicate them. Slavery, on the other hand, they never said a word against. You've made the point about the "slavery" in capitalism today, but you've undermined your own argument. I may not be leading a revolution against the slave labour practices of the twenty-first century, but I am happy to say that they are cruel and inhumane. Jesus and his followers, on the other hand, not only didn't speak out against enslaving other humans, they went out of their way to promote and encourage slavery, telling slaves to work hard and well for their masters, even those who treated them cruelly.


If all you can do is strawman, that's an admission of defeat. And not the first we've had from you on this thread. How long is it going to take you, I wonder, to run out of excuses for a book that says it's okay to capture people, keep them for life, own them, force them to work for you, punish them brutally as you wish, and that speaks out against slave revolts?

You’re failing to understand the basic issues:

For starters, slavery ‘is’ practised. Slavery not being practised in some places is a new thing. This is not pro-slavery, anti-slavery, anything else slavery - it just ‘is’ Understand? Not a Bill Clinton is, just ‘is’. Just like all other forms of behaviour ‘are‘. The concepts pro and anti only exist in your mind, unless you are talking about something other than what is in the bible. The topic of slavery barely comes up in the bible, questions of pro or contra are irrelevant, as there is no context within which they might exist. That context is in your head, but you are unable or unwilling to see that.

An even more fundamental issue is that you are simply not equipped to grasp the fundamental difference between one era and another, or the ludicrous superficially of your thinking about this. You have no basis on which to call yourself anti-slavery, and yet you feel that people living in a completely different place and time, with a mindset so utterly different to your own you haven’t even made an attempt to understand, should adopt your pseudo-morality, that requires doing nothing. To apply the same way of thinking then would result in the same thing it does for you - ignoring whatever is real ‘now’ and pointing the finger at some other group of people at some other time , ‘wow they were so bad, but look at me, I accept the norms of my society’.

What you call a straw man is an entirely accurate summation of what you have presented so far.

Overall though the issue is the fundamental superficiality of your argument - it is nothing more than empty words. You don’t appear to realise that an actual analysis of the actual situations and writings involved would be an entirely different thing. I don’t know why you don’t get that, but evidently you don’t. You could probably counter that tendency over time by immersing yourself in writings from the ancient period, leaving aside your preconceptions. Your thinking is made up of a bunch of ideas absorbed in a particular time and place, or places, few of any of which have been subjected to any reality testing. That doesn’t mean you can’t start developing some real thinking criteria.

 

[Tom 1]

I wonder, to run out of excuses for a book that says it's okay to capture people, keep them for life, own them, force them to work for you, punish them brutally as you wish, and that speaks out against slave revolts?

To the partial extent this is true, what excuses? Are you unable to read? Where have I made an excuse for what people thought of as normal thousands of years ago? The only excuses I see are you trying to support your non-existent argument by making excuses for your own indifference to modern-day slavery.

Once again:

In the Old Testament, laws and regulations focus on things like the integrity, cohesion and development of the Hebrew nation. That is what it is for - is that not clear? Do you not understand what that means? It makes no attempt to address modern-day concerns about the practise of slavery. What is it about that that you don’t understand?

In the NT Jesus advocates and lives out a life of sacrifice. He preaches a kingdom that is not of this world. He teaches individual responsibility for developing a Christian mindset and behaviours based on certain principles that have nothing to do with a person’s circumstances, unless those circumstances directly contradict that development in certain specific ways that would prevent an individual from carrying it out. Please do tell me what it is exactly that you don’t understand about that.

 

[Tom 1]

The Bible, in both Old and New Testaments, criticised and decried many things without necessarily making attempts to eradicate them

Here you’ve got the possible beginnings of an actual argument, if you can develop this further with some detailed examples there might be something there worth discussing.

 

[Tom 1]

. I may not be leading a revolution against the slave labour practices of the twenty-first century, but I am happy to say that they are cruel and inhumane.

Amazing! I can feel people all over the world realising how wrong they have been and just like stopping doing bad stuff. Wow I never realised the warm fuzzy feeling that accompanies empty virtue signalling could be so effective!

 

[Tom 1]

they went out of their way to promote and encourage slavery

You genuinely don’t understand when you are reading what you want to see into the text, do you?

 

[Tom 1]

You still haven't managed to point out the errors in Pastor Warren's sermon on slavery.

Sure I did, you just ignored it.

 

[Tom 1]

And so, we are morally superior to whoever wrote the different parts of the Bible. It's really quite simple, but I don't blame you for not wanting to face it.

This is simple nonsense - you do nothing about the social ills in your own time, but feel you are superior to someone else who didn’t address the social ills of their time, in a way you approve of. This is entirely specious. You may think that you feeling one way or another about something is ‘moral’ - morality however is not about ‘feelings’.

 

[Tom 1]

I can see you enjoy this little story, but didn't you see I answered it already?

Nope. ‘I feel bad about it’ is a meaningless statement, not an answer.

 

[Tom 1]

So, your thesis is that of course slavery is a bad thing and naturally Jesus and His followers would have realised that, but overthrowing slavery was not on their agenda, right?

Uh, no. I can see that reading what you think into other texts is an issue for you. Here’s what happens in the bible: OT - everyone (i.e all cultures) has slaves. How should the Hebrew nation manage slavery of a) Hebrews and b) non-Hebrews? Moses provides guidelines. That’s it. Got it? NT - some Christians are slaves, some own slaves. How should they behave? - some guidelines are provided. Clear?

Where slavery is briefly mentioned in the bible it is in terms of ‘how’ not ‘whether’, is that clear? What are the OT laws for? To provide cohesion, identity and stability in the fledgling Hebrew nation. What are the NT guidelines for? To promote individual morality in a troubled world regardless of circumstances and to build a church in Jesus image (nb Jesus permitted himself to be tortured and killed). You appear to think that if someone indicated they felt bad about slavery in the midst of all that, it would have had some significance - ?

As above you have the beginnings of a possible argument in looking at any wider social practices that were denounced in the OT and NT, so if you want to pursue that you might have something useful to say.

 

[Tom 1]

Do you think slavery is a bad thing? Good. That makes you anti-slavery. Did the Bible think slavery was a bad thing? No. That makes it pro-slavery. This isn't a difficult concept to grasp.

No on both counts - anti-slavery is being anti-slavery, aka doing something about it. Feeling bad about slavery is not anti anything. Neither is it true that accepting something as happening in society ‘pro’ that thing, otherwise, manufactured sentiments notwithstanding, anyone who owns a mobile phone is pro-slavery.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

You’re failing to understand the basic issues

No, I'm not. The issues are indeed very basic, and I understand them just fine. Of course, some people might have a problem with the idea that the Good Book contains immoral practices, and they may feel the need to fog the issue with talk of how we can't understand or judge other societies.

For starters, slavery ‘is’ practised. Slavery not being practised in some places is a new thing. This is not pro-slavery, anti-slavery, anything else slavery - it just ‘is’ Understand? Not a Bill Clinton is, just ‘is’. Just like all other forms of behaviour ‘are‘.

Whoever said anything different?

The concepts pro and anti only exist in your mind, unless you are talking about something other than what is in the bible.

Of course they don't. To be pro something is to think it is good, to be anti is to think it's bad. It's really that simple.

The topic of slavery barely comes up in the bible, questions of pro or contra are irrelevant, as there is no context within which they might exist. That context is in your head, but you are unable or unwilling to see that.

I've already addressed this point. The Bible doesn't say much on the topic of slavery, but quite enough to see its views.

An even more fundamental issue is that you are simply not equipped to grasp the fundamental difference between one era and another, or the ludicrous superficially of your thinking about this. You have no basis on which to call yourself anti-slavery, and yet you feel that people living in a completely different place and time, with a mindset so utterly different to your own you haven’t even made an attempt to understand, should adopt your pseudo-morality, that requires doing nothing. To apply the same way of thinking would result in the same thing it does for you - ignoring whatever is real ‘now’ and pointing the finger at some other group of people at some other time , ‘wow they were so bad, but look at me, I accept the norms of my society’.

Oh. So you don't think that kidnapping people against their will, forcing them to work for you, and punishing them brutally for the rest of their lives is a bad thing? Or is it just okay if it happened a few thousand years ago? Once again your need to defend the Bible is forcing you to defend the practice of slavery.
And of course I have a basis to call myself anti-slavery. It's based on me thinking that slavery is a bad thing. Simple.

What you call a straw man is an entirely accurate summation of what you have presented so far.

No, "straw man" fits it nicely.

Overall though the issue is the fundamental superficiality of your argument - it is nothing more than empty words. You don’t appear to realise that an actual analysis of the actual situations and writings involved would be an entirely different thing. I don’t know why you don’t get that, but evidently you don’t. You could probably counter that tendency over time by immersing yourself in writings from the ancient period, leaving aside your preconceptions. Your thinking is made up of a bunch of ideas absorbed in a particular time and place, or places, few of any of which have been subjected to any reality testing. That doesn’t mean you can’t start developing some real thinking criteria.

While it would do anyone good to study history more, that doesn't change the fact: slavery is a bad thing. You seem to have a curious difficulty in saying this.

To the partial extent this is true, what excuses? Are you unable to read? Where have I made an excuse for what people thought of as normal thousands of years ago? The only excuses I see are you trying to support your non-existent argument by making excuses for your own indifference to modern-day slavery.

Uh - you made such excuses a paragraph above or so.

In the Old Testament, laws and regulations focus on things like the integrity, cohesion and development of the Hebrew nation. That is what it is for - is that not clear? Do you not understand what that means? It makes no attempt to address modern-day concerns about the practise of slavery. What is it about that that you don’t understand?

Nothing. It's all quite clear. The Bible was quite okay with slavery. What is it that you don't understand?

In the NT Jesus advocates and lives out a life of sacrifice. He preaches a kingdom that is not of this world. He teaches individual responsibility for developing a Christian mindset and behaviours based on certain principles that have nothing to do with a person’s circumstances, unless those circumstances directly contradict that development in certain specific ways that would prevent an individual from carrying it out. Please do tell me what it is exactly that you don’t understand about that.

I don't understand how you can say that the Bible was neither pro- nor anti-slavery when Jesus and the disciples clearly supported it, as can be seen from a number of things they said.

Here you’ve got the possible beginnings of an actual argument, if you can develop this further with some detailed examples there might be something there worth discussing.

Are you not already familiar with them? I didn't think it was necessary for me to list the many things that the Bible says are wrong and evil.

Amazing! I can feel people all over the world realising how wrong they have been and just like stopping doing bad stuff. Wow I never realised the warm fuzzy feeling that accompanies empty virtue signalling could be so effective!

It's a simple point. I think slavery is a bad thing. Why, don't you?

You genuinely don’t understand when you are reading what you want to see into the text, do you?

Of course I do. I'm surprised you don't see how people saying, "Slaves, you should obey your masters even if they are cruel to you," is not making comments in favour of slavery. But perhaps I'm asking too much of you. It must be difficult for a Christians to admit that the Bible is pro-slavery - no matter how strong and uncontestable the evidence is.

 

[Tom 1]

While it would do anyone good to study history more, that doesn't change the fact: slavery is a bad thing. You seem to have a curious difficulty in saying this.

One more time. Yes I think slavery is a bad thing. I think this because in the culture I was born into it is seen as such. This is the only reason you or I see it as a bad thing. If you or I had been born at a different time, we would think about it in an entirely different way, and some of the things common in society today - neglect of elders, contravention of the inviolable obligation to provide hospitality to strangers some ancient cultures saw as sacrosanct, the breaching of which was considered a heinous crime punishable by exile or death but which today is a matter of indifference, and so on, and so on. There is a reason why I refer to your statements as empty - it is because they are based on nothing more than random, unexamined notions that pass through your mind. There really is no need to persist in that.

 

[Tom 1]

you made such excuses a paragraph above or so.

?

 

[Tom 1]

Are you not already familiar with them? I didn't think it was necessary for me to list the many things that the Bible says are wrong and evil.

Come on, make an effort, you could have something worth pursuing there. What political or social practices, common across all cultures at the time, are addressed in the bible?

 

[Tom 1]

It's a simple point. I think slavery is a bad thing. Why, don't you?

So what? What difference does what you think make to anyone?

Why don’t you feel that not showing hospitality to any stranger who appears at your door is an absolute obligation, and that imposing the death penalty for anyone who doesn’t meet that obligation would be perfectly reasonable? Here’s another chance for you to make an actual argument, based on real things.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Sure I did, you just ignored it.

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

This is simple nonsense - you do nothing about the social ills in your own time, but feel you are superior to someone else who didn’t address the social ills of their time, in a way you approve of. This is entirely specious. You may think that you feeling one way or another about something is ‘moral’ - morality however is not about ‘feelings’...‘I feel bad about it’ is a meaningless statement, not an answer.

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.

Uh, no. I can see that reading what you think into other texts is an issue for you. Here’s what happens in the bible: OT - everyone (i.e all cultures) has slaves. How should the Hebrew nation manage slavery of a) Hebrews and b) non-Hebrews? Moses provides guidelines. That’s it. Got it? NT - some Christians are slaves, some own slaves. How should they behave? - some guidelines are provided. Clear?

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.

Where slavery is briefly mentioned in the bible it is in terms of ‘how’ not ‘whether’, is that clear? What are the OT laws for? To provide cohesion, identity and stability in the fledgling Hebrew nation. What are the NT guidelines for? To promote individual morality in a troubled world regardless of circumstances and to build a church in Jesus image (nb Jesus permitted himself to be tortured and killed). You appear to think that if someone indicated they felt bad about slavery in the midst of all that, it would have had some significance - ?

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.

As above you have the beginnings of a possible argument in looking at any wider social practices that were denounced in the OT and NT, so if you want to pursue that you might have something useful to say.

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.

No on both counts - anti-slavery is being anti-slavery, aka doing something about it. Feeling bad about slavery is not anti anything. Neither is it true that accepting something as happening in society ‘pro’ that thing, otherwise, manufactured sentiments notwithstanding, anyone who owns a mobile phone is pro-slavery.

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.

 

[Tom 1]

Of course I do. I'm surprised you don't see how people saying, "Slaves, you should obey your masters even if they are cruel to you," is not making comments in favour of slavery. But perhaps I'm asking too much of you. It must be difficult for a Christians to admit that the Bible is pro-slavery - no matter how strong and uncontestable the evidence is.

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.