Slavery in the bible.

[FireDragon76]

The same stories that you see endorsing slavery, other actual slaves read as a story that gave them hope that in fact God was on their side. Sort of torpedoes your idea that the Bible is about endorsing slavery.

 

[Allandavid]

The same stories that you see endorsing slavery, other actual slaves read as a story that gave them hope that in fact God was on their side. Sort of torpedoes your idea that the Bible is about endorsing slavery.

Please show the evidence of slaves reading the slavery passages in the bible and receiving “hope” from them...?

 

[FireDragon76]

If it makes you feel better to blame Christians for all the evils in the world, I hope it gives you a measure of peace but I see no point in continuing this pointless discussion with you as you likely intend to discredit any and all evidence that we are not vile, disgusting ogres for using such an old book full of "evil" stories.

 

[Par5]

The same stories that you see endorsing slavery, other actual slaves read as a story that gave them hope that in fact God was on their side. Sort of torpedoes your idea that the Bible is about endorsing slavery.

You just don't take things in, do you? Your torpedoes are duds. I said it was the god of the bible that endorsed slavery. The bible only records the deeds and words of others, nothing else. A simple question. Do you believe that it is ok for someone to consider another human being to be their property?
That is not a trick question.

 

[Allandavid]

If it makes you feel better to blame Christians for all the evils in the world, I hope it gives you a measure of peace but I see no point in continuing this pointless discussion with you as you likely intend to discredit any and all evidence that we are not vile, disgusting ogres for using such an old book full of "evil" stories.

No one, as far as I can see, has “blamed Christians” for the world’s evils....overreacting a little...?

As a Christian, I would have thought that the disturbing parts of the bible would concern you the most...?

To run away and simply play victim just leaves those questions unanswered...

 

[Belk]

Again, this goes back to the whole Problem of Evil argument. You might as well ask why He didn't make earth exactly like Heaven.

But this is not a problem of evil. This is simply stating that God could of condemned slavery the same way he condemned other sins. If he did not do so then the conclusion one comes to is slavery is not immoral.

 

[FireDragon76]

As a Christian, I would have thought that the disturbing parts of the bible would concern you the most...?

The Bible is not full of nice, fluffy imagery. It's not like a feel-good Hallmark card or a Deepak Choprah book. Of course it's disturbing at times. But it also has a gritty realism that speaks truth to my human condition. It tells me about sin and salvation.

To run away and simply play victim just leaves those questions unanswered...

I don't give a flying fig (I would say something worse, 'cause I'm a Lutheran and we are known to cuss like sailors, but it's against the rules). I'm not on an atheist site implying that atheists are moral monsters because Stalin or Pol Pot murdered millions of people. You've been told repeatedly that interpreting the Bible is not a straightforward task like reading it as any other book, because it is not just any other book.

You atheists are all too often like a pot complaining that the potter hasn't left very good instructions on how he can become a coffee cup instead of a flower pot, and therefore all this talk about there being a potter at all is just nonsense. You confuse your own psychological hangups, bourgeois moral sensibilities and petty resentments with profound understanding of reality.

 

[Par5]

The Bible is not full of nice, fluffy imagery. It's not like a feel-good Hallmark card or a Deepak Choprah book. Of course it's disturbing at times. But it also has a gritty realism that speaks truth to my human condition. It tells me about sin and salvation.



I don't give a flying fig (I would say something worse, 'cause I'm a Lutheran and we are known to cuss like sailors, but it's against the rules). I'm not on an atheist site implying that atheists are moral monsters because Stalin or Pol Pot murdered millions of people. You've been told repeatedly that interpreting the Bible is not a straightforward task like reading it as any other book, because it is not just any other book.

You atheists are all too often like a pot complaining that the potter hasn't left very good instructions on how he can become a coffee cup instead of a flower pot, and therefore all this talk about there being a potter at all is just nonsense. You confuse your own psychological hangups, capricious tastes and petty resentments with profound understanding of reality.

 

[Par5]

Stalin and Pol Pot didn't murder people because they were atheists, they murdered people because they were despots and anyway, we are not talking about any of those men, nor are we talking about coffee cups and flowerpots. We are talking about slavery and the biblical god who is recorded as saying people can claim ownership of other people. As I asked you earlier, do you believe that such a thing is right? It's not rocket science, it only requires a yes or a no.

 

[CitizenD]

,

 

[FireDragon76]

No, I do not believe slavery is right, of course not. You do not understand how our religion works, that we use particular hermeneutics to understand the Bible that excludes some interpretations as valid. Slavery being OK is not a legitimate interpretation of the Scriptures in any mainstream Christian church that I know of, it is based on a faulty hermeneutic, one that has nothing to do with the way of Christ.

Based on my understanding of the Bible and Christian history, I do not see slavery as part of God's perfect, eternal will, I see it as a provisional institution and condescension to a particular state of humanity during a particular era. That is how many Christians would understand it.

 

[FireDragon76]

Most atheists would do well to at least undertake some college courses on the philosophy and psychology of religion, because their critique is philosophically sophomoric. It doesn't deal with how religion actually operates in real peoples lives. Mind you, there are nonbelievers with more sophisticated critiques of religion but "Bible = yuck" is not one you will typically see intelligent critics bring up.

 

[Par5]

Most atheists would do well to at least undertake some college courses on the philosophy and psychology of religion, because their critique is philosophically sophomoric. It doesn't deal with how religion actually operates in real peoples lives. Mind you, there are nonbelievers with more sophisticated critiques of religion but "Bible = yuck" is not one you will typically see intelligent critics bring up.

How does your use of hermeneutics interpret these two verses?

Exodus 21:20-21 (NASB): 20"If 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."
Exodus 21:4d (NASB):
"If his master gives him a wife, and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall go out alone."

It seems pretty clear to me that these verses are telling us that the biblical god is saying that people are the property of others and I see nothing sophomoric about that interpretation, philosophically or otherwise.
You seem to be saying, oh I know that's what those verses say, but that's not what they actually mean. If that's the case, reading the bible must be a hermeneutical nightmare for you!

 

[DogmaHunter]

I think you don't understand how to properly read the Bible.

Okay.

Why don't you then explain to us how to "properly" read the following verse:

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. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

Or this verse:

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

You are still angry at Christians, still wounded.

No anger. Just frustrated at people living in the 21st century and desperatly trying to make up excuses for, I'm sorry to say, vile practices.

Frustrated that otherwise perfectly decent people have such emotional problems with just speaking out about how utterly horrible these passages really are.

If the exact same sentences would show up in ANY OTHER BOOK, I'ld dare say that none of you would be trying to debate these issues. And rightly so. Because they are deeply, deeply, deeply immoral and disgusting.

Yet, because they are in the bible and associated with your god of choice, all of a sudden they can't be "all bad" and "surely there must be a reason and context that makes it moral".

Well, sorry - but no. There is NO CONTEXT where owning people as property and being allowed to beat them to the point where they die a week later from internal bleeding is excusable or whatever.

Yes, the primitive, barbaric people of ancient times didn't really know any better, so we can't judge them with our 21st century moral standards.

But your god is not one of those people. He's supposed to be the very standard of morality, a benevolent all-knowing, all-powerfull entity that does not tolerate any such evil behaviour.

And yet... there it is, right there, for all to read.

You project onto our God what you have experienced about us

No. We are simply reading the book that is supposed to reflect what this god thinks, says, commands,...

But I don't recognize in my God what you say about him.

So to you, the bible is not a book that is supposed to reflect what your God thinks, says, commands,... ?

That's fine though. But if that is the case, you'll likely find yourself in direct opposition of the a lot of christians, likely the majority.

My God does not endorse slavery

His book does.

he commanded limits upon its evil, and in time, raised up prophets to tell us that its time was passed.

There is nothing in the bible that states that keeping slaves was only allowed temporarily.

 

[Allandavid]

The Bible is not full of nice, fluffy imagery. It's not like a feel-good Hallmark card or a Deepak Choprah book. Of course it's disturbing at times. But it also has a gritty realism that speaks truth to my human condition. It tells me about sin and salvation.



I don't give a flying fig (I would say something worse, 'cause I'm a Lutheran and we are known to cuss like sailors, but it's against the rules). I'm not on an atheist site implying that atheists are moral monsters because Stalin or Pol Pot murdered millions of people. You've been told repeatedly that interpreting the Bible is not a straightforward task like reading it as any other book, because it is not just any other book.

You atheists are all too often like a pot complaining that the potter hasn't left very good instructions on how he can become a coffee cup instead of a flower pot, and therefore all this talk about there being a potter at all is just nonsense. You confuse your own psychological hangups, bourgeois moral sensibilities and petty resentments with profound understanding of reality.

Wow...

I don’t see anyone here claiming that Christians are “moral monsters”...! We simply point out that the book you revere condones and regulates and sometimes promotes slavery.

If that reality is making you angry, I suggest you take up your beef with the people who wrote it, not those of us who simply read it...!

 

[YouAreAwesome]

What I've learned from this thread that I haven't placed due focus on in the past:

1. The Old Testament has laws written as though God is personally giving them yet are immoral in nature.
2. (1) is used to argue the christian God is immoral.
3. Most defend (1) by arguing ancient culture justifies so called "immoral laws", often attempting to show these as "moral" (the natural response to defend the bible).
4. If there is such a thing as objective morality, slavery must be included as morally good if the bible is the standard of this objective morality.​

Please challenge this response:

1. The bible is written by many different authors.
2. Each biblical book has it's own style.
3. The author's personality and experiences influence what is written down. (2)
Assume Moses wrote the Law.
4. Moses believed he was writing on behalf of God.
5. Moses' personality and experiences influence what was written down. (3)
6. Moses permitted slavery. (4,5)
​

Hebrews 10:1 says the Law was only a shadow. God is the light (1 John 1:5) and Moses wrote His shadow. God is veiled by the Law which is an inaccurate picture of Him (2 Corinthians 3:16).

 

[DogmaHunter]

I'm not on an atheist site implying that atheists are moral monsters because Stalin or Pol Pot murdered millions of people.

Nobody here is calling christians "monsters".
In fact, I'm fairly positive that most, if not all, of the people arguing here will agree that the vast majority of christians today are completely opposed to slavery.

It's not the morality or actions of christians that are being discussed here. It's passages in the bible. A book that supposedly reflects the morals and commandments of GOD.

You've been told repeatedly that interpreting the Bible is not a straightforward task like reading it as any other book, because it is not just any other book.

Then go ahead how we should be "interpreting" the verses in that book which unambigously are explaining how one can buy, sell, own and inherit slaves and treat human beings as property. Go ahead and explain how we should be "interpreting" the fact that the bible only ever condones and regulates slavery and never condemns it.

That is, in fact, what this entire discussion is about. How can such passages be rhymed with a supposedly all-powerfull, all-knowing, just, moral and benevolent god?

You atheists are all too often like a pot complaining that the potter hasn't left very good instructions on how he can become a coffee cup instead of a flower pot, and therefore all this talk about there being a potter at all is just nonsense.

Not really.
The "potter" in this case is quite clear... That's precisely the point. It's not like the bible is being vague about slavery. It is quite clear.

You confuse your own psychological hangups, bourgeois moral sensibilities and petty resentments with profound understanding of reality.

Did you just say that being opposed to the practice of slavery and calling that practice "immoral" is.... a "bourgeois moral sensibility" and a "petty resentment"? Really??

 

[DogmaHunter]

No, I do not believe slavery is right, of course not. You do not understand how our religion works, that we use particular hermeneutics to understand the Bible that excludes some interpretations as valid. Slavery being OK is not a legitimate interpretation of the Scriptures in any mainstream Christian church that I know of, it is based on a faulty hermeneutic, one that has nothing to do with the way of Christ.

I agree that at least the vast majority of churches don't consider slavery moral or acceptable.

But eum....... Christ in the bible doesn't have issues with it. In fact, he tells slaves that they should obey their masters.

Based on my understanding of the Bible and Christian history, I do not see slavery as part of God's perfect, eternal will, I see it as a provisional institution and condescension to a particular state of humanity during a particular era. That is how many Christians would understand it.

Okay, great.

But the problem is that the bible makes no mention of this. Anywhere.
It doesn't say "you can keep slaves for the time being".

It just says "you can keep slaves". Period.

 

[Norbert L]

Wow...

I don’t see anyone here claiming that Christians are “moral monsters”...! We simply point out that the book you revere condones and regulates and sometimes promotes slavery.

If that reality is making you angry, I suggest you take up your beef with the people who wrote it, not those of us who simply read it...!

The point of contention for myself is equating that the God of the Bible promotes slavery because He didn't condemn it in the past. My point is, in order to establish blame, a person would need to establish causation. It's not as if the rest of the world back then didn't practice it, who were without the influence of the God of Israel. Slavery's institution within civilization at that time happened because mankind chose it. Of course more questions and issues arise because of that but it isn't as simple as slavery is bad, God chose to continue slavery, therefore God is bad. A person would need to be aware of His motives and how they are incorporated into the market place of our free moral agency as civilization progresses and evolves.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Please challenge this response:

1. The bible is written by many different authors.
2. Each biblical book has it's own style.
3. The author's personality and experiences influence what is written down. (2)
Assume Moses wrote the Law.
4. Moses believed he was writing on behalf of God.
5. Moses' personality and experiences influence what was written down. (3)
6. Moses permitted slavery. (4,5)
​

​

I'm fine with that, given that I'm an atheist and don't consider the bible to be a book that reflects the thoughts, morals and commandments of some deity. But rather simply reflects the culture of the people that wrote it down. In that case, I fully expect them to include things that are downright barbaric, while not treating them as such.

From a christian believer's perspective though, thinking like that seems to be undermining the entire religion. Because the idea there is that the authors just wrote down what they believed to be true and that what they believed isn't necessarily true.

And if the argument is that this only applies to those things that we, with our 21st century moral standards, have problems with.... then I'm just going to point out the obvious special pleading fallacy.