Why would a benevolent god condone slavery?

[redleghunter]

Yes, take note of the underlined portion above. The law is telling Hebrews to allow escaped slaves which have escaped their foreign masters to settle in one of their (Hebrew) towns.

Hebrew towns they had yet to occupy. These verses follow the same language as the Levitical towns of sanctuary.

 

[Brother Billy]

Incorrect. The Evangelical Abolitionists were Christian and not Bronze Age Israelites under Mosaic Law. They were following the Royal Law of loving one another as Christ loves us. That is very Biblical.

Haha, it might surprise you, but Jesus didn't invent your "Royal Law". He was just repeating something which already existed in the 5 books of Moses - the very same books that said it was okay to keep slaves. So the author(s) of these books obviously thought these weren't mutually exclusive laws. See Leviticus 19:9-18

 

[redleghunter]

Haha, it might surprise you, but Jesus didn't invent your "Royal Law". He was just repeating something which already existed in the 5 books of Moses - the very same books that said it was okay to keep slaves. So the author(s) of these books obviously thought these weren't mutually exclusive laws. See Leviticus 19:9-18

You must of missed it:

John 13:

34“A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. 35“By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.”

Christ set Himself as the example...not the Law written in stone but written on hearts.

 

[Brother Billy]

In the Bronze age and even Iron age if you owned no property and had no means to support yourself or your family you died of starvation, exposure or worse became fodder for bandits.

There are many third world countries where that is still applicable. In these countries, would you support slavery as described in Leviticus 25:44-46 as a welfare safety net?

 

[redleghunter]

There are many third world countries where that is still applicable. In these countries, would you support slavery as described in Leviticus 25:44-46 as a welfare safety net?

Absolutely not. Those third world nations now have the wealth of the United States of America and the loving charity of Western Nations to keep them from those horrible choices.

I can give some details of such loving people and organizations which help these nations with immediate aid and how to properly grow crops and cattle. Most of them are Christians.

 

[Brother Billy]

Absolutely not. Those third world nations now have the wealth of the United States of America and the loving charity of Western Nations to keep them from those horrible choices.

I can give some details of such loving people and organizations which help these nations with immediate aid and how to properly grow crops and cattle. Most of them are Christians.

I applaud anyone that helps poor people, however the help that is provided is only a tiny fraction of that which is needed. There are still millions at risk of starvation every year. My question is aimed at these people.

If biblical chattel slavery was a morally good welfare system to save people from starvation, then why wouldn't you support it for these people? I expect you to say no. My response then is if it immoral now, why was it not immoral in Biblical times? God's morals don't change over time or place to place?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Top 5 facts about deaths from hunger

1. Every second a person dies of hunger

Right now, more than 1 billion people suffer from hunger. This means that 1 in every 6 people on Earth don’t get enough food to live a healthy life. This year 36 million of these people will die of hunger!

2. The world’s biggest health problem

The number of people suffering from hunger has been growing since the mid 1990s. Well into the 21st century hunger is still the worlds biggest health problem.

3. A growing problem

The number of people who suffer from hunger grew by 75 million in 2007 and by 40 million in 2008. This is partly because food prices have been rising.

4. Children are especially vulnerable

Every 5 seconds a child under 5 dies because of hunger, or of directly related causes.

 

[Par5]

There is no difference in Christ. That means a lot.

Paul as with Jesus Christ was not a social revolutionary. Rome was the political and economic power of the time period. Your beef should be with their politicians emperors and philosphers. Most people barely survived in ancient Rome. In many cases servitude was survival and in many cases a more opportune position economically for survival than begging in the streets.

As I mentioned, you engage in anachronisms as there were no social safety nets and minimum wage laws even in the Roman Empire.

If you are looking for a Christian moral principle on how one treats another, Jesus raised the bar from what some call the Golden rule. He told His followers to love one another as He loved them. He gave His very own life.

Are you implying that your god is an anachronism? I thought Christians believed that their god never changes.
As for the sacrifice of Jesus giving his life. The bible says he was up and about again in a few days, so where was the sacrifice other than to suffer a very nasty time on a cross.
When the young men of our military went to foreign lands only to return in a coffin, that was a real sacrifice. No one went to their loved ones and said, "I'm sorry to tell you that your son was killed in action, but don't worry, give it a couple of days and he'll be back with you good as new."

 

[Brother Billy]

Practically every faith based religion has tolerated slavery for a long degree of time. Some religions like Islam don’t ever want to abolish slavery. And religions Zoroastrianism permitted slavery at one point, yet I never saw an Athiests and skeptics point fingers at Ahura Mazda as being an evil and non benevolent god for permitting slavery. It just seems to work with the Abrahamic God these days, doesn’t it?

But those other faith-based religions who tolerated slavery were false gods that were either satanic or non-existant. What was the Christian Gods excuse?

Atheism isn't a religion. It's just a view that the evidence which has been presented that any god exists, is not convincing. You might as well ask why people who didn't believe in fairies didn't protest against slavery.

 

[Brother Billy]

To begin with, there were, to a certain extent, different guidelines for Hebrew “indentured servants” (aka slaves) as opposed to foreign slaves captured in war. We in the 21st century west have preconceived notions and images regarding slavery based on the practice in the19th century US and its horrors, but it is inaccurate to transfer these ideas to ancient Israel.

In a society where prison did not exist, a captive foreigner was faced with two options – execution or slavery, the latter being more humane. Why didn't God just simply outlaw slavery in this situation, aka be more “humane”? As I stated in a previous post, the various Canaanite peoples practiced wicked religious practices that were an abomination in His sight, such as child sacrifice and fertility cults involving male and female shrine prostitutes, among other things. That was a major purpose for the Israelite invasion. If the Mosaic Law had commanded to set the Canaanites free, that would have nullified God's intent for having the Hebrews engage in warfare in the first place.

As I pointed out in my last response to you, Leviticus 25:44-46 allowed the Hebrews to acquire slaves from any non-Hebrew nation that they were at war with, except from a small number which he had marked for extermination.

So this couldn't have just been over collective punishment of the Canaanites. I'm sure you would also agree that one cannot judge a whole nation by the actions of a group of individuals within that nation, even if that group constitutes the majority of the nation. There would have been young innocent children and unborn babies who did not deserve to be exterminated/enslaved. God, being omnipotent, could easily have made every wicked person drop down dead if he wanted while sparing the innocent ones. However he ordered these innocents to be slaughtered/enslaved as well.

Also, history shows us many examples where armies conquered regions and kept the people there subdued without slaughtering / enslaving everyone. Disbanding the army / removing all weapons / replacing the leaders / sending in an occupying army etc. could all be very effective methods to subdue enemies. Also remember that there was likely to be far more civilians than soldiers in the conquered cities/nations. And among these civilians there would have been many men that were not soldiers. So even if all the soldiers were removed, their societies could, in many cases, still function.

Lastly, note that foreign slaves could also be purchased during peace time as described in Deuteronomy 20:10-18. What is your excuse for allowing the Hebrews to buy non-Hebrew slaves like cattle at an auction?

A major point of contention in this thread seems to be Exodus 21:20-21 which is being viewed as grossly inhumane and on par with American slavery. However I encourage you to keep reading ahead to Exodus 21:26-27 in conjunction with Deuteronomy 17:8-10. Any man who did kill his slave was considered to be guilty of murder and would be subsequently punished accordingly. If the slave lived, it was indicative of the master's intention as discipline, but permanent personal injury brought freedom. The master's power over foreign captives was limited which was unprecedented in the ancient world and thus differentiated the Israelite nation from its neighbors.

If any of you want slavery discussed in light of the New Testament, I can address that as well.

There were laws that protected American slaves from being abused (see below). Does this mean American slavery was okay?

Southern slave codes made willful killing of a slave illegal in most cases. For example, in 1791, the North Carolina legislature made the willful killing of a slave murder unless it was done who was resisting or under moderate correction. Historian Lawrence M. Friedman wrote: "Ten Southern codes made it a crime to mistreat a slave.... Under the Louisiana Civil Code of 1825 (art. 192), if a master was "convicted of cruel treatment," the judge could order the sale of the mistreated slave, presumably to a better master.".

Also see my point under #190 on this thread.

 

[Brother Billy]

That:
"In everything, do to others as you would have them do to you"
outlaws any kind of mistreatment of others (not just some specific wrongs, such as the lists of laws in the Old Testament), including every last instance of any kind of poor treatment of anyone.

Such as even being merely harsh and unfair (even just that) to an indentured servant, or a circa 2018 employee, is now outlawed for Christians.

But much earlier than this, in Israel, already, way back in the OT time we talked about, micro regulation laws from God regulated slavery:

15 If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master. 16 Let them live among you wherever they like and in whatever town they choose. Do not oppress them.
-- Deuteronomy chapter 23.

Yup, that means precisely what it sounds like it means.

That law from God (no less) says any escaping slave/servant, say from a village a few miles away for example, is to be treated as a fresh new citizen, and treated well (not merely tolerated).

So...it's instantly impractical to mistreat your slave then, for anyone obeying law from God.

Can you see that?

But in the New Testament, later in time, Christ gives us the perfected form of the golden rule, which says we are to treat everyone, everywhere, in all circumstances, all the time, as we would want others to treat us if we were in that situation they are in....

Which not only expands and extends the Deuteronomy 23 law on escaping slaves, but goes much further.

Like Paul's short, 1-page letter Philemon to a Christian about their own escaped servant -- that the escaped slave is not merely to be treated ok in their new location...
but is now the social equal of the previous owner, fully. That's revolutionary of course.

It would be amazing if today in the United States we lived up to that level of treating anyone as a true social equal....

Of course only some people obey the golden rule from Christ (in it's total form), when it's harder to do. They have help though, from an invisible source (to use the wording of Joseph Campbell).

I think you missed the whole point in my original post, which was that chattel slavery in the bible and American slavery were wrong because both reduced people to objects that could be owned as property. This is what makes chattel slavery immoral. How well a slave is treated by his master makes no difference to the morality of slavery - slavery is always wrong. Would have supported American slavery if slaves were treated like the Hebrews were supposed to treat their slaves? I don't think so.

 

[Brother Billy]

Why wasn't slavery banned outright?

Gaining freedom in certain circumstances (you listed only 2, but there were more) -- still not enough for us, today.

We want no injustices at all, ever. Not anywhere, in all of time.

But these laws in Israel were a continuing progression.

Incremental.

The laws were incremental, progressing, over time.

Like steps on a stair.

Why?

That's the question you should be wondering (unless you already have learned why from reading what I wrote on it not many posts above).

If the laws were progressing, at what point was God going to ban slavery? At the height of the Transatlantic slave trade, both Protestants and Catholics were supporting the institution and using the Bible's verses on slavery to justify it.

There seems to be nothing that indicated that God wanted to phase out slavery at some point in future. In fact 1 Cor. 7:20-24 implies that God was okay with slavery existing indefinitely. Any future advocate of slavery could use Paul's words as an argument for keeping slavery. In fact many Southern slave owners did precisely this.

Eventually humans realized that slavery was deeply immoral and abolished slavery. Yes there were many Christians involved in the abolishment movement. However they picked and chose the verses that supported their cause and ignored or interpreted away the verses that didn't. So the Abolishment Movement was successful in ending slavery in spite of, not because of Christianity and the Bible.

 

[Brother Billy]

The one sentence the OP used negates his entire argument:

Nothing "man" RECOGNIZES, makes something God has implemented, "immoral." That is not, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be, ours to decide. No matter how much we want to rant and rave and throw tantrums about it, many things are just not ours to declare "immoral".
We can say it violates laws WE have made. But, that is all it amounts to. (By the way, WE have made it OUR law that homosexuals can marry..... within a few decades, we will have expanded that law OF OURS to include adults marrying children.)
We don't know why God found no problem with slavery... but He seems to have found none.

Why does this negate my argument? The bible reduces people to objects that could be owned as property and you don't think that is immoral because God said it's okay?

 

[Brother Billy]

Perhaps without even realizing it, you are using an assumption that death is final.

If death of this mortal body is the end, then the Bible makes little sense. You'd even be correct in your reaction in that case.

But the same Bible says death isn't final.

You can't use this collection of scripture to point to some deaths of innocents and say any version of 'God should not have killed innocents' (e.g. 'murders') when the same collection of scripture says death is only like 'sleeping' and they will all live again.

Innocents that died are actually safely through the test of this temporary body.

They came from God, were watched over by God, and are with God, and will live forever.

But you and I, we have yet to get safely through the test.

You are sounding like William Lane Craig!

With that logic you should also be a vigorous supporter of abortion! Killing unborn children would give them a free pass directly to heaven without risking an earthly life where they might be led astray and end up in hell instead. You would save way more souls that way than through proselytizing to the unbelievers.

 

[Halbhh]

You are sounding like William Lane Craig!

With that logic you should also be a vigorous supporter of abortion! Killing unborn children would give them a free pass directly to heaven without risking an earthly life where they might be led astray and end up in hell instead. You would save way more souls that way than through proselytizing to the unbelievers.

Why does this negate my argument? The bible reduces people to objects that could be owned as property and you don't think that is immoral because God said it's okay?

I think you missed the whole point in my original post, which was that chattel slavery in the bible and American slavery were wrong because both reduced people to objects that could be owned as property. This is what makes chattel slavery immoral. How well a slave is treated by his master makes no difference to the morality of slavery - slavery is always wrong. Would have supported American slavery if slaves were treated like the Hebrews were supposed to treat their slaves? I don't think so.

Seems you did not read the post #118, even though you quoted it. As post 118 shows, God ended slavery as being acceptable in the only way that worked for real, by changing human hearts to be against it, that is, by gradually changing the entire culture by making us believe we should treat everyone well.

 

[Halbhh]

"In everything, do to others as you would have them do to you"
outlaws any kind of mistreatment of others (not just some specific wrongs, such as the lists of laws in the Old Testament), including every last instance of any kind of poor treatment of anyone.

[That includes all slavery, if it's not already obvious.]

Such as even being merely harsh and unfair (even just that) to an indentured servant, or a circa 2018 employee, is now outlawed for Christians.

[Not only is slavery now cleary wrong, but also even underpaying workers, see.]

But much earlier than this, in Israel, already, way back in the OT time we talked about, micro regulation laws from God regulated slavery [increasingly]:

15 If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master. 16 Let them live among you wherever they like and in whatever town they choose. Do not oppress them.
-- Deuteronomy chapter 23.

Yup, that means precisely what it sounds like it means.

That law from God (no less) says any escaping slave/servant, say from a village a few miles away for example, is to be treated as a fresh new citizen, and treated well (not merely tolerated).

So...it's instantly impractical to mistreat your slave then, for anyone obeying law from God.

Can you see that?

But in the New Testament, later in time, Christ gives us the perfected form of the golden rule, which says we are to treat everyone, everywhere, in all circumstances, all the time, as we would want others to treat us if we were in that situation they are in....

Which not only expands and extends the Deuteronomy 23 law on escaping slaves, but goes much further.

Like Paul's short, 1-page letter Philemon to a Christian about their own escaped servant -- that the escaped slave is not merely to be treated ok in their new location...
but is now the social equal of the previous owner, fully. That's revolutionary of course.

It would be amazing if today in the United States we lived up to that level of treating anyone as a true social equal....

Of course only some people obey the golden rule from Christ (in it's total form), when it's harder to do. They have help though, from an invisible source (to use the wording of Joseph Campbell).

 

[Brother Billy]

Seems you did not read the post #118, even though you quoted it. As post 118 shows, God ended slavery as being acceptable in the only way that worked for real, by changing human hearts to be against it.

I did read #118.

You start of by arguing that slaves weren't mistreated because of the laws. The mere existence of the these laws doesn't mean that they were followed in practice. There were laws that protected American slaves from being mistreated too. Does this mean American slaves were not mistreated? Where is your evidence that the Hebrews treated their slaves well? Regardless, as I pointed out above, the way slaves were treated makes no difference to the morality of owning other people as objects - it is always wrong

As I already pointed out, the first five books of Moses didn't find any contradiction between telling the Hebrews to love their neighbors while also allowing chattel slavery. I thought the Mosaic Laws came from God? Which means Jesus was just repeating what he (God) had already revealed to the author of the five books of Moses.

Instead of helping Onesimus escape which was the morally correct thing to do, Paul sent him back to his master. Paul encouraged slaves to both accept their lot in life and not fight against it. He also told slaves to serve their masters, even if they were cruel. Paul never said slavery was wrong.

See my post under #191

 

[Halbhh]

I did read #118.

You start of by arguing that slaves weren't mistreated because of the laws. The mere existence of the these laws doesn't mean that they were followed in practice. There were laws that protected American slaves from being mistreated too. Does this mean American slaves were not mistreated? Where is your evidence that the Hebrews treated their slaves well? Regardless, as I pointed out above, the way slaves were treated makes no difference to the morality of other people as objects - it is always wrong

As I already pointed out, the first five books of Moses didn't find any contradiction between telling the Hebrews to love their neighbors while also allowing chattel slavery. I thought the Mosaic Laws came from God? Which means Jesus was just repeating what he (God) had already revealed to the author of the five books of Moses.

Instead of helping Onesimus escape which was the morally correct thing to do, Paul sent him back to his master. Paul encouraged slaves to both accept their lot in life and not fight against it. He also told slaves to serve their masters, even if they were cruel. Paul never said slavery was wrong.

See my post under #191

See post 195 (suppose I'm a poor writer if you like, and so therefore make more effort to read sympathetically in order to understand what is meant, precisely). I've added helpful repeating in different words in brackets.

The golden rule in it's "In everything" form, the culmination of law-giving from God, outlaws every kind of slavery.

Every, even the modern American forms in widespread use right now, like taking advantage of workers by unfairly underpaying them.

That form also.

It outlaws not only the obvious old forms of slavery, but all the 2018 forms.

 

[Brother Billy]

See post 195 (suppose I'm a poor writer if you like, and so therefore make more effort to read sympathetically in order to understand what is meant, precisely). I've added helpful repeating in different words in brackets.

The golden rule in it's "In everything" form, the culmination of law-giving from God, outlaws every kind of slavery.

Every, even the modern American forms in widespread use right now, like taking advantage of workers by unfairly underpaying them.

That form also.

It outlaws not only the obvious old forms of slavery, but all the 2018 forms.

I apologize, in my haste to respond, I didn't read your response properly. So ignore my first paragraph in #196.

Just to make my position clear. The reason I think chattel slavery is immoral is because it reduces people to objects that can be owned. How they are treated makes no difference to this fact.

Lets suppose that I agreed with your assertion that: "In everything, do to others as you would have them do to you"outlaws any kind of mistreatment of others, including slavery.

That still means that God thought that chattel slavery was a good idea before Jesus came along because he explicitly condones it in Leviticus and Exodus. What happened here then? Did God change his mind about slavery? If Jesus outlawed it because it was immoral, then why did God condone it earlier?

What are your comments of my assessment of Paul's views on slavery in #196?

Regarding Deuteronomy 23:15, see my post in #179

 

[Brother Billy]

You must of missed it:

John 13:

34“A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. 35“By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.”

Christ set Himself as the example...not the Law written in stone but written on hearts.

How is the command in John 13:34 different from the one he gave in Leviticus 19:9-18? Both say love your neighbor? See my answer in #198

 

[Halbhh]

I apologize, in my haste to respond, I didn't read your response properly. So ignore my first paragraph in #196.

Just to make my position clear. The reason I think chattel slavery is immoral is because it reduces people to objects that can be owned. How they are treated makes no difference to this fact.

Lets suppose that I agreed with your assertion that: "In everything, do to others as you would have them do to you"outlaws any kind of mistreatment of others, including slavery.

That still means that God thought that chattel slavery was a good idea before Jesus came along because he explicitly condones it in Leviticus and Exodus. What happened here then? Did God change his mind about slavery? If Jesus outlawed it because it was immoral, then why did God condone it earlier?

What are your comments of my assessment of Paul's views on slavery in #196?

Regarding Deuteronomy 23:15, see my post in #179

My view is that instead God progressively (over time) regulated slavery in order to produce incremental, gradual improvement, because no other way works for enough people.

I lay this out more in post #148 (here's a link) -- Why would a benevolent god condone slavery?

It's key to understand that through all of history, all the time, only some minority of people followed the laws from God, and that's true today also in churches, just as it was back then in Israel 3000 and 3500 years ago. Only some portion obey, and the rest disregard, but do forms of pretending to be aligned when it suits their interests to appear to be aligned.

Since most disobey, then what's the best way to progress?

The answer is incrementally.

Next, regarding Philemon, you are seeing: "Instead of helping Onesimus escape which was the morally correct thing to do, Paul sent him back to his master. Paul encouraged slaves to both accept their lot in life and not fight against it. He also told slaves to serve their masters, even if they were cruel. Paul never said slavery was wrong."

But reading Philemon, we have to reach a different view -- not only is Onesimus now a free man, but additionally his former master, Philemon, must accept him as a total equal --

15 Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back forever—16 no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. ...


It's what the text plainly says. No other interpretation is even possible, if you read it.

See, even many Christians don't realize what is in the Bible, because they don't read with a true fine care to see every bit, so you are in a majority to only miss a crucial detail, and we've all done it. The way to overcome this is to lay aside assumptions as we read, so that we are able to see what's there. We take the blinders off our eyes, so to speak.

Paul continues --
17 So if you consider me a partner, welcome him as you would welcome me. 18 If he has done you any wrong or owes you anything, charge it to me. 19 I, Paul, am writing this with my own hand. I will pay it back—not to mention that you owe me your very self. 20 I do wish, brother, that I may have some benefit from you in the Lord; refresh my heart in Christ. 21 Confident of your obedience, I write to you, knowing that you will do even more than I ask.

Onesimus is now totally the equal to Philemon in all ways, and there is zero chance for Philemon to get around that, but instead he is to wholeheartedly embrace it.