Slavery

[Maxwell511]

Are there any passages in the bible that might suggest that slavery is immoral or at least a faux pas?

If there is not then why is slavery immoral?

 

[TheBear]

Unfortunately, the Bible is much more concerned with what happens in the bedroom between two consenting adults, than it is with unwilling subjects of slavery.

 

[Chesterton]

I don't have answers to those questions, but mind if I ask what's the underlying idea for the second one? Do you think Christians read the bible to see what's right or wrong? I'm asking seriously, because I see that idea often here, and I'm sometimes unsure whether it's just a little fun insult, or if some people actually think it's true. I could see where that might be a legitimate thing to ask an orthodox Jew, but it seems a strange idea to have about Christians.

 

[Open]

It is never said anywhere in the Bible that slavery is immoral.
(I ran a similar thread a few days ago).
The counter arguments are vague and read meaning in to texts that is not overtly obvious. But I'm sure you'll see that as the thread progresses.

 

[Maxwell511]

I don't have answers to those questions, but mind if I ask what's the underlying idea for the second one? Do you think Christians read the bible to see what's right or wrong? I'm asking seriously, because I see that idea often here, and I'm sometimes unsure whether it's just a little fun insult, or if some people actually think it's true. I could see where that might be a legitimate thing to ask an orthodox Jew, but it seems a strange idea to have about Christians.

As a Christian where do you think you get your morals from?

 

[Chesterton]

As a Christian where do you think you get your morals from?

I think the same place everyone basically does, from conscience primarily, but also some fine points maybe from books, parents, teachers, maybe even from this forum (yeah, right. )

 

[Chesterton]

But I think I might have figured out the answer to what I asked right after I posted. I remembered the Ten Commandments, and I had this mental image of an evangelical preacher waving a bible around, saying “the good book says this” and “the good book says that”, and I think perhaps that kind of image is where the idea comes from that the Bible is more or less a literal instruction manual, or contains a hard and fast index of prohibited behaviors. That's not very accurate, but I can sort of see how some might think that.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Man stealing (kidnapping free people in order to sell them as slaves) was forbidden under the Law of Moses and in fact punishable by death. Cruel treatment of slaves is condemned. Slavery itself however, is not. It is simply an unfortunate reality of this fallen world, like war, disease and famine.

 

[ebia]

Unfortunately, the Bible is much more concerned with what happens in the bedroom between two consenting adults, than it is with unwilling subjects of slavery.

Well, I do have to admit that the book devoted to relationship in the context of sex (Song of Songs) is longer than the book devoted to the issue of relationships in the context of slavery (Philemon).

I'm not sure how one might measure the scale of the release from slavery motif of Exodus and New Exodus against the motif of marriage between God and his people (Israel/Church) though - it's a bit like comparing apples and oranges.

 

[Warren Clark]

Man stealing (kidnapping free people in order to sell them as slaves) was forbidden under the Law of Moses and in fact punishable by death. Cruel treatment of slaves is condemned. Slavery itself however, is not. It is simply an unfortunate reality of this fallen world, like war, disease and famine.

My question:
What does this say about the Bible?

It condemns not resting on the sabbath, wearing certain clothing is forbidden, women that do not obey the men are condemned, homosexuality is a grievance of death, and the list goes on.

Does the Bible really seem like a material item reasonable to put your life on?

 

[ebia]

My question:
What does this say about the Bible?

It condemns not resting on the sabbath, wearing certain clothing is forbidden, women that do not obey the men are condemned, homosexuality is a grievance of death, and the list goes on.

Does the Bible really seem like a material item reasonable to put your life on?

If you see the bible as a book of condemnations you've got bigger problems than the explicit things condemned.

 

[a.d.ivNonasNovembres]

The fact that we find slavery more immoral than out ancestors did gives me much pause for thought.
I really am very ...unsure.
I don't like that suddenly when modern people get squeamish about something that we decide we are right and all hundreds of generations before us are wrong.
However I think there is enough of a long, though unworldly, firm voice opposing slavery through the ages that it can be genuinely said to be immoral and not just something we find icky.

Still, the whole issue of slavery is interesting, for many reasons, why we find it so much more of an issue than people in the past did is tied up in peculiarly modern vices - yet it does seem to be genuinely wrong, and other things we consider fairly benign (even when we admit their wrongness) people many generations ago found abhorrent. The shifting of moral emphasis and how it ties into the peculiar set of vices and virtues of each age - that kind of thing fascinates me.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

My question:
What does this say about the Bible?

It condemns not resting on the sabbath, wearing certain clothing is forbidden, women that do not obey the men are condemned, homosexuality is a grievance of death, and the list goes on.

Does the Bible really seem like a material item reasonable to put your life on?

My question:
What does this say about the age in which we live?

Being a Christian means not being bound by the prevailing wisdom of the world in which you live. Such wisdom continually changes throughout history. If you marry yourself to this age, you'll be a widower in the next.

I see no reason to assume that the age in which we live is more "enlightened" that those that preceded it.

 

[quatona]

I don't have answers to those questions, but mind if I ask what's the underlying idea for the second one? Do you think Christians read the bible to see what's right or wrong? I'm asking seriously, because I see that idea often here, and I'm sometimes unsure whether it's just a little fun insult, or if some people actually think it's true.

Are you kidding? It´s what a lot of Christians here keepclaiming day in day out.
Personally, I don´t need a bible to tell me this, and neither do I believe that Christians get their morals from the bible. Doesn´t change anything about the fact that many Christians claim they do, and thus I think it´s perfectly legitimate to tackle this claim without earning yourself the reproach of burning a strawman.

 

[Tenka]

My question:
What does this say about the age in which we live?

Its better.

 

[ebia]

Its better.

For most of the people in the world not a whole heap better.

 

[Nooj]

I don't like that suddenly when modern people get squeamish about something that we decide we are right and all hundreds of generations before us are wrong.

Why? Do we get 'squeamish' when deciding that the ancients were wrong about science? No, so why not the same consideration for ancient morals?

Most theists believe that there are right and wrong answers when talking about morality. They do the same sort of judging the past when looking at practices like infanticide or something so trivial as worshiping idols. They don't see any problem with calling past practices as barbaric.

 

[a.d.ivNonasNovembres]

Why? Do we get 'squeamish' when deciding that the ancients were wrong about science? No, so why not the same consideration for ancient morals?

Because the scientific method specifically works in a progressive way (although there are some fun philosophers of science who like to suggest it doesn't work as well as it pretends). Moral philsophy doesn't have an innately developmental method, in fact there is no single method or school of thought in moral philosophy. There is no good reason why we should know any better than people in any other era.

Most theists believe that there are right and wrong answers when talking about morality. They do the same sort of judging the past when looking at practices like infanticide or something so trivial as worshiping idols. They don't see any problem with calling past practices as barbaric.

Morality based in theism is not condemning practices because they are old though, rather because it is contrary to God's revealed will.

 

[Chesterton]

Are you kidding? It´s what a lot of Christians here keepclaiming day in day out.

I've seen people say that the Bible says something's wrong, which is true, but I can't recall anyone saying "I believe ___ is wrong because the Bible says it's wrong".

Personally, I don´t need a bible to tell me this, and neither do I believe that Christians get their morals from the bible.

Then we agree.

Doesn´t change anything about the fact that many Christians claim they do, and thus I think it´s perfectly legitimate to tackle this claim without earning yourself the reproach of burning a strawman.

You must be seeing things; there's no strawman there. I just asked a question.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Why? Do we get 'squeamish' when deciding that the ancients were wrong about science? No, so why not the same consideration for ancient morals?

Let's go even further. Let's show the same consideration for modern morals. It isn't judging the morals of previous ages that I take issue with. It is the use of modern as the standard for doing so. To reject past moral beliefs simply because they are different from the present age means to assume that today's moral beliefs are right and good simply because they are modern, an assumption that I believe is unwarranted.