The so-called "biblical" view on slavery ...

[JohnClay]

I didn't watch the video but just wanted to mention:

Exodus 21:20-21
"Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property."

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm afraid I can't see the video you posted, Philo. But if we're considering the question of "Does the Bible support slavery?" it has already been thoroughly answered both in the past and in the present. Yes, the Bible does.

This isn't a thread about whether or not the Bible "supports" some brand of slavery. Just an f.y.i.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I didn't watch the video but just wanted to mention:

Exodus 21:20-21
"Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property."

If you're consistent, you can just keep on quoting every single verse in the Bible that has something to do with slavery, and the views about foreigners that go with them ..........................

Keep going, John! We want this thread to be an exercise in hermeneutics and research, not one in futility and ignorance.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

You know why! For the same reason I've been spouting at you and cvanwey (among others) for the past year and two years, respectively. Fortunately, I don't have to repeat myself on all of that. You should have gotten it the first half dozen times I went over those reasons, but here you are....yet again....questioning me.

Yep, because you never engage the text you hide behind your hermeneutics and claims of others ignorance and never explain your positions. It is very telling that you started a different thread to discuss this avoiding my thread that just copy and pasted the biblical text.

All I'm going to say is that I do NOT believe the Bible documents were written in a vacuum. Oops. Let me stop right there and correct myself. I should have said that I KNOW the Bible was not written in a vacuum. And so, it is inextricably tied to many other contexts, both intertextual and extra-biblical in nature. If you ignore this fact and commence to "just read the Bible as it is," then you're not actually engaging the Biblical concepts on a deeper level. This fact I'm telling you here applies to many topics in the Bible, including that of slavery. For people to flat out ignore this is...well.... as cliche as it may sound...... ignorant.

Yet you never explain any of this. Call me ignorant if you like but even in context the bible endorses slavery. Josh in the video even admits this. Go to my thread and address the actual texts in context as I posted and tell us why God did not endorse slavery. If your stance is that God did not inspire the bible and these were views of the people at that time, fine, but living in the south in Texas that is not the majority view.

Does someone need years of study to understand the bible then?

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

The 20th chapter of Exodus provides lists the ten commandments. Christians tend to consider the ten Commandments binding on the Hebrews. Verses 21-26 provide laws about Alters. Christians tend to think these laws were also binding on the Hebrews. Who ultimately established these laws. Moses or Yahweh? Most Christians will say Yahweh.


The next chapter (21) concerns laws about slaves. What changed between chapter 20 and 21. Did not the same God who gave the Ten Commandments and laws concerning the appropriate use of alters also provide his laws for how slaves should be treated? There is no reason to suppose God was just acknowledging an accepted part of society. He was giving his law—the law he established by which his people would walk in righteousness. By what criteria is slavery “just accepted” and the laws concerning Alters a reflection of Gods will?

Personally the theology of covenants (testaments) is pretty compelling. I.e. the Mosaic Covenant is for Israelites (they signed up to it), but not binding to Christians (who are part of the New Covenant). That is not to dismiss the Mosaic Law, but it doesn't make it binding and the fact that Christians refer to the Ten Commandments so much is because they are pretty universal even if they aren't bound by them as the Jewish believers were.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yep, because you never engage the text you hide behind your hermeneutics and claims of others ignorance and never explain your positions.

Epistemologically speaking, this entire statement is a contradiction in conceptual terms! Do you even understand what you're saying here? I don't think you do ...

It is very telling that you started a different thread to discuss this avoiding my thread that just copy and pasted the biblical text.

You're thread is that of a simpleton, so yeah, I started my own thread, one that, unlike yours, is geared toward approaching the texts of the Bible in more wholistic and academic terms (i.e. terms fit for Reality), not truncated by false, low level, simple expectations of 'direct reading.' As if the Bible could be read 'directly.' HA!

Yet you never explain any of this. Call me ignorant if you like but even in context the bible endorses slavery. Josh in the video even admits this. Go to my thread and address the actual texts in context as I posted and tell us why God did not endorse slavery. If your stance is that God did not inspire the bible and these were views of the people at that time, fine, but living in the south in Texas that is not the majority view.

Ok. You're ignorant [but I think you choose to be] and I HAVE explained a lot of this over the course of time here on CF; I've even given folks a bevy of resources to check into. But does anyone recognize this or affirm it? Oh, HELL NO! They (especially the skeptics) just keep parroting their talking head script and speak as if I never said a thing.....OR that whatever I've said is either esoteric or incoherent, all which is tripe on their part, of course.

My stance is that slavery is taken as a social given...in a sinful world. Someone will be someone else's subject as long as the Devil is in the mix. And that's that. So, if everyone wants slavery to disappear, then they kind of need to accept Jesus Christ on a universal scale, then it'll disappear. It's that simple. (And I say 'simple' because that is what everyone is apparently looking for here ... other than me.)

Does someone need years of study to understand the bible then?

.....well, it does help. In fact, it helps quite a bit. But trying to convince folks here that this is the case receives a refusal befitting that of having one's teeth pulled involuntarily ...

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Sold
Loved
Accepted
Victorious
Eternity

Joseph clear example. God says the slave believer is God's freeman. The free believer is God's slave. Wake up!

1 Corinthians 7:22

Any reason we should believe this? I truly feel free as a non believer not to do what I want but to decide what is right and wrong for myself.

 

[Caliban]

Personally the theology of covenants (testaments) is pretty compelling. I.e. the Mosaic Covenant is for Israelites (they signed up to it), but not binding to Christians (who are part of the New Covenant). That is not to dismiss the Mosaic Law, but it doesn't make it binding and the fact that Christians refer to the Ten Commandments so much is because they are pretty universal even if they aren't bound by them as the Jewish believers were.

I don't think the text works that way, but even if I grant that, it doesn't extricate the God of the Bible for the moral failure of slavery. He said they weren't allowed to eat shrimp, pork, or blend fabric--he could have banned slavery and he didn't. A truly moral God would know how horrible the institution of slavery is. I think the presence of slavery is strong evidence for the human authorship of the text. It seems rather clear it was not composed by a moral and divine being.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't think the text works that way, but even if I grant that, it doesn't extricate the God of the Bible for the moral failure of slavery. He said they weren't allowed to eat shrimp, pork, or blend fabric--he could have banned slavery and he didn't. A truly moral God would know how horrible the institution of slavery is. I think the presence of slavery is strong evidence for the human authorship of the text. It seems rather clear it was not composed by a moral and divine being.

Hogwash! and B.S. (That's an acronym for "Bacon Strips," obviously! )

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Any reason we should believe this? I truly feel free as a non believer not to do what I want but to decide what is right and wrong for myself.

...which is essentially incoherent............................ just say'n!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't think the text works that way, but even if I grant that, it doesn't extricate the God of the Bible for the moral failure of slavery. He said they weren't allowed to eat shrimp, pork, or blend fabric--he could have banned slavery and he didn't. A truly moral God would know how horrible the institution of slavery is. I think the presence of slavery is strong evidence for the human authorship of the text. It seems rather clear it was not composed by a moral and divine being.

Additionally, the bible isn't exactly keen on the idea of 'world democracy.' Of course, neither was Plato ...

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Epistemologically speaking, this entire statement is a contradiction in conceptual terms! Do you even understand what you're saying here? I don't think you do ...

aaaaaannnnd you still won't explain anything will you.

You're thread is that of a simpleton, so yeah, I started my own thread, one that, unlike yours, is geared toward approaching the texts of the Bible in more wholistic and academic terms (i.e. terms fit for Reality), not truncated by false, low level, simple expectations of 'direct reading.' As if the Bible could be read 'directly.' HA!

Calling me names does not change the fact that the bible support slavery.

Ok. You're ignorant [but I think you choose to be] and I HAVE explained a lot of this over the course of time here on CF; I've even given folks a bevy of resources to check into. But does anyone recognize this or affirm it? Oh, HELL NO! They (especially the skeptics) just keep parroting their talking head script and speak as if I never said a thing.....OR that whatever I've said is either esoteric or incoherent, all which is tripe on their part, of course.

Link to where you explained these things please.

My stance is that slavery is taken as a social given...in a sinful world. Someone will be someone else's subject as long as the Devil is in the mix. And that's that. So, if everyone wants slavery to disappear, then they kind of need to accept Jesus Christ on a universal scale, then it'll disappear. It's that simple. (And I say 'simple' because that is what everyone is apparently looking for here ... other than me.)

That has proven to be false. Some Christians throughout history have supported slavery based on the bible. So, a universal scale of Jesus believers will not end slavery.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

...which is essentially incoherent............................ just say'n!

More words, no real content.

 

[Broken Fence]

Any reason we should believe this? I truly feel free as a non believer not to do what I want but to decide what is right and wrong for myself.

That is simply what the bible says.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

More words, no real content.

I've given you plenty of words from the moment we've first spoken to each other. Go review those and stop pretending like I've never said anything of substance. For you to go on talking as if this is the case would not put you in a very favorable light, particularly not one that befits a person of truth and integrity.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

That is simply what the bible says.

Ok.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I've given you plenty of words from the moment we've first spoken to each other. Go review those and stop pretending like I've never said anything of substance. For you to go on talking as if this is the case would not put you in a very favorable light, particularly not one that befits a person of truth and integrity.

So you have called me ignorant, a simpleton and now you question my integrity. All well and fine, just respond to my thread about slavery if it is so easily debunked.

Could God stop slavery?

You are making a claim, give me the links to where you have made a substantive argument about the topic.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So you have called me ignorant, a simpleton and now you question my integrity. All well and fine, just respond to my thread about slavery if it is so easily debunked.

Could God stop slavery?

You are making a claim, give me the links to where you have made a substantive argument about the topic.

Can God stop sin? Yes, at some point, He most definitely will. Slavery is an outcome of a world of sin. It (and other forms of subjugation) will continue (as they still do today around the globe) until humanity finally wakes up and wishes to be free from sin ...

... there's a certain spiritual economy to it all that many folks wish to continue to ignore or deny. They should stop with their following of Satan and their defiance of Christ.

And that's the fact, Jack!

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Can God stop sin? Yes, at some point, He most definitely will. Slavery is an outcome of a world of sin. It (and other forms of subjugation) will continue (as they still do today around the globe) until humanity finally wakes up and wishes to be free from sin ...

... there's a certain spiritual economy to it all that many folks wish to continue to ignore or deny. They should stop with their following of Satan and their defiance of Christ.

And that's the fact, Jack!

Can you support any of these assertions?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Can you support any of these assertions?

Do you mean, can I cite and quote Scripture to back these things up? Or do you have some other so-called "demonstration" in mind that you want me to provide by way of pulling a rabbit out of some magical hat?