Why would a benevolent god condone slavery?

[S.O.J.I.A.]

I don't think you actually read my last post! The majority of African slaves who were taken to the Americas weren't kidnapped by Europeans. They were bought from Africans who in turn captured other Africans during inter-tribal conflicts just like the Hebrews purchased foreigner slaves as mentioned in Leviticus 25:44-46. The Africans had a thriving slave trade long before the Europeans arrived. See: Slavery in Africa - Wikipedia

this is where you get a lot of misinformation and wires crossed. while it's true that all thriving civilizations had a servant class due to economic necessity, the idea that everyone dehumanized and subjugated other races of people like the Europeans did(even unto their own), is simply not true. your own source actually says as much. arabs played a significant role in African slavery and were enslaving africans even before the European. castration of their slaves was common practice.

there is no documentation showing that africans treated other africans in a dehumanizing and oppressive manner.

for one, they had to kidnap africans in order to have the amount of slaves they needed for the work required. Europeans even before they dealt with africans at all were doing this with other Europeans through serfdom. "spiriting" was the act of abducting people and taking them off to become slaves(the irish were typically victims of this). man-stealing was part of the MO long before the African was being considered. even when dealing with indentured servant Europeans that were criminals, they would trump up charges or even make up charges in order to force people into slavery. innocent Europeans with false charges or those being overly charged for petty crimes were sent off to be slaves(sound familiar?). this type of skullduggery didn't start when dealing with the African.

they were, in fact, channels in Africa where Africans did sell slaves to Europeans, but most of these were not POWs. when africans found out how the African slaves were being treated in the Americas they began to resist the slaves buyers. this wouldn't have happened if they were following biblical slave law in just dumping their POWs. these were their own people who would be considered native born who sold themselves as servants, or, at the very least, they didn't have the practice of barbarism against their slaves even if they were POWs.

The above paragraphs show how the Confederacy used the Bible to justify slavery:

• The Canaanites, descended from Ham via his son Canaan, were historically regarded as the ethnic ancestors of the black peoples of Africa. Europeans used the Curse of Ham to justify the Transatlantic Slave Trade
  
• Europeans viewed themselves as the God's chosen people (just like the Hebrews viewed themselves) and the Africans as pagans that had to serve them. To be chosen by God means that you are superior to other pagan nations
  
• Europeans were prohibited from enslaving fellow Europeans just like Hebrews were prohibited from enslaving fellow Hebrews. Europeans were only allowed to make fellow Europeans serve them as indentured servants in the same was as Hebrews were only allowed to make fellow Hebrews serve them as indentured servants

Europeans are not God's chosen people(do you believe they are?) and africans have nothing to do with canaanites. so you have a group of people who oppressed, subjugated, and dehumanized another group of people based on a false premise.

thing is, they knew this wasn't true, but rationalization aren't about truth or facts, they're just about giving some sort of justification for an action.

 

[rjs330]

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

Wrong? According to whom? You've just relegated yourself to deciding right and wrong. Who made you the final arbitor of morality? By what right do you elevate yourself to be the decision maker? Are you fully qualified to make all decisions on morality for all mankind?

 

[Strathos]

Except the adults wouldn't be throwing up empty threats.
Traffic is demonstrably real, after all.

Most of the time you don't see the car coming until it hits you.

 

[Not David]

Nope. I have no preference to Gods being one way or the other.
I just call it like I see it.

A god cannot be benevolent or just while at the same time allowing and regulating slavery.
That's just a contradiction in terms.

Unless you believe that slavery is actually a moral practice off course.... The authors of the bible clearly believed that, after all.

I don't. And I don't think very highly of people who think it is.

You only believe slavery is an immoral practice because Christians were the ones fighting against slavery.
Probably your god would had taught them about the free market and capitalism.

 

[Ophiolite]

I was being logically inquisitive.

If you say so.

I’d like to know the god atheists could live with.

I cannot speak for others, but I would have thought that would be any God that demonstrably existed. It is the absence of such demonstrations and dependence upon faith that creates atheists.

Then why bother even debating the topic.

I cannot speak for Dogma Hunter. I joined the conversation to implictly reprimand you for perceived rudeness. (Reprimand is a bit strong - draw your attention to would be better.) I think though, that my concerns may mirror those of DH. I find several of the events in the Old Testament, coupled with the attitude towards them and the supposed actions/reaction of God, to be disturbing. They become wholly explicable if they are the deeds, words and attitudes of a pastoral people, extant a handful of millenia ago. If they are sponsored/inspired by God they suggest a a dark and unattractive God. Some would feel this worth commenting on.

I also pointed out a few pages ago, the actual stance taken by unbelievers is quite pedestrian as regarding any theological freight.

At least the 19th century skeptics employed a bit of rationalism when addressing the Scriptures. A materialistic approach but a much better version than we see today.

It is understandable that one values one's own opinions. It is understandable such valuation may not extend to others.

Edit: Corrected a typo and added a comma and an indefinite article.

 

[Brother Billy]

this is where you get a lot of misinformation and wires crossed. while it's true that all thriving civilizations had a servant class due to economic necessity, the idea that everyone dehumanized and subjugated other races of people like the Europeans did(even unto their own), is simply not true. your own source actually says as much. arabs played a significant role in African slavery and were enslaving africans even before the European. castration of their slaves was common practice.

there is no documentation showing that africans treated other africans in a dehumanizing and oppressive manner.

for one, they had to kidnap africans in order to have the amount of slaves they needed for the work required. Europeans even before they dealt with africans at all were doing this with other Europeans through serfdom. "spiriting" was the act of abducting people and taking them off to become slaves(the irish were typically victims of this). man-stealing was part of the MO long before the African was being considered. even when dealing with indentured servant Europeans that were criminals, they would trump up charges or even make up charges in order to force people into slavery. innocent Europeans with false charges or those being overly charged for petty crimes were sent off to be slaves(sound familiar?). this type of skullduggery didn't start when dealing with the African.

they were, in fact, channels in Africa where Africans did sell slaves to Europeans, but most of these were not POWs. when africans found out how the African slaves were being treated in the Americas they began to resist the slaves buyers. this wouldn't have happened if they were following biblical slave law in just dumping their POWs. these were their own people who would be considered native born who sold themselves as servants, or, at the very least, they didn't have the practice of barbarism against their slaves even if they were POWs.

Europeans are not God's chosen people(do you believe they are?) and africans have nothing to do with canaanites. so you have a group of people who oppressed, subjugated, and dehumanized another group of people based on a false premise.

thing is, they knew this wasn't true, but rationalization aren't about truth or facts, they're just about giving some sort of justification for an action.

I think you misunderstood me. I stated that Africa had a thriving slave trade long before the Europeans arrived. I never claimed that this involved only Africans buying other Africans or that the type of slavery practiced within Africa was as brutal as the type of slavery that was practiced in the Americas or Middle East. I also realize that the Arabs were major participants in the African slave trade and bought millions of chattel slaves.

However, if you think that the vast majority of Africans who were enslaved involved Europeans directly kidnapping Africans, then you are mistaken (if you disagree, show me a credible source for your claim). Yes, European traders captured some Africans in raids along the coast, but the vast majority of slaves were bought from local African dealers. These dealers had a sophisticated network of trading alliances collecting groups of people together for sale. Most of the Africans who were enslaved were captured in battles (African tribes fighting eachother) or were kidnapped by other Africans, though some were sold into slavery for debt or as punishment. The captives were marched to the coast, where they were imprisoned in large stone forts, built by European trading companies, or in smaller wooden compounds. When the slave ships arrived from Europe they were laden with trade goods. Captains offered gifts to local African leaders and paid taxes for the right to trade. They then began the serious business of barter and exchange, offering a wide variety of trade goods such as textiles, firearms, alcohol, beads, manillas and cowries.

See: African Participation and Resistance to the Trade · African Passages, Lowcountry Adaptations · Lowcountry Digital History Initiative

I was trying to explain to you how the Europeans justified the Transatlantic Slave Trade and how they modeled the slavery system in America after the slavery in the Bible. The Europeans were (mostly) purchasing slaves from non-European nations in the same was as the Bible allows Hebrews to purchase chattel slaves from non-Hebrews nations (Leviticus 25:44-46). The Bible specifically prohibits Hebrews from subjecting fellow Hebrews to chattel slavery - instead Hebrews could subject fellow Hebrews to indentured servitude. In the same way, the laws in American stated that Europeans could only subject fellow Europeans to indentured servitude, not chattel slavery. You might argue that their interpretation of the Bible was incorrect, which is a different question and is related to the main topic of this thread.

By the way, I agree that Europeans are not God's chosen people and that africans have nothing to do with Canaanites. However this is what Europeans believed and how they tried to justify the slave trade.

 

[Brother Billy]

Wrong? According to whom? You've just relegated yourself to deciding right and wrong. Who made you the final arbitor of morality? By what right do you elevate yourself to be the decision maker? Are you fully qualified to make all decisions on morality for all mankind?

What? If you came across a runaway slave, do you think it is moral to return him to his master? Most people in the civilized world today would describe that as an evil action. Most people would say that owning another person as property is evil. I guess you're not "most people"?

 

[rjs330]

What? If you came across a runaway slave, do you think it is moral to return him to his master? Most people in the civilized world today would describe that as an evil action. Most people would say that owning another person as property is evil. I guess you're not "most people"?

What gives you the right to determine morality? By what power do you have the authority to be the judge on what is moral and what isn't? At one time "most people" didn't consider slavery immoral. What authority do you claim to have to decide for mankind what is immoral and what isn't?

 

[Brother Billy]

What gives you the right to determine morality? By what power do you have the authority to be the judge on what is moral and what isn't? At one time "most people" didn't consider slavery immoral. What authority do you claim to have to decide for mankind what is immoral and what isn't?

I subscribe to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which consists of the following rights:

• Right to Equality
• Freedom from Discrimination
• Right to Life, Liberty, Personal Security
• Freedom from Slavery
• Freedom from Torture and Degrading Treatment

The above naturally flow from the assumption that every person has a property interest in their own body. This forms the basis of the most legal systems around the world, including those in the US and Europe. Very few people in the world would disagree with the above. Also, isn't this obvious just from the perspective of human dignity?

I don't think that humans get a top down morality imposed on them from an outside source. Instead, human morality comes from a bottom up approach. Just like every other physical and mental trait that humans possess, our conscience has evolved because it has helped our species survive. For most of our evolutionary history, we lived in small bands in very hostile environments where starvation, wild animals, enemy tribes and the elements threatened our existence at every turn. If we didn't care for our family members or form cooperative relationships with others based on reciprocity and fairness, our species would have gone extinct long ago. I would argue that our conscience forms the basis for all moral systems throughout the world and existed long before the first religions appeared. Humans created religion themselves and tried to codify what evolution had already given us (i.e. the Golden Rule) into their religions together with other "morals" such as "don't work on the Sabbath" or "don't worship other gods except me" etc. Moral systems were also influenced by culture.

Most people don't get their morals from the Bible, and to the extent that they do, they just pick and choose the nice bits (such as love your neighbor) and ignore the nasty bits (such as those that condone evils like slavery, genocide, rape, etc).

 

[Brother Billy]

.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Most of the time you don't see the car coming until it hits you.

But cars demonstrably exist and, unfortunatly, run over people every day. That danger is real.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You only believe slavery is an immoral practice because Christians were the ones fighting against slavery.

Together with non-christians, against other christians waving with bibles who were for slavery.
And my rationale for finding slavery immoral, doesn't include anything biblical.

Probably your god would had taught them about the free market and capitalism.

I don't believe in gods.
Nore do I think that (unregulated) capitalism is a good thing.

 

[DogmaHunter]

What gives you the right to determine morality? By what power do you have the authority to be the judge on what is moral and what isn't? At one time "most people" didn't consider slavery immoral. What authority do you claim to have to decide for mankind what is immoral and what isn't?

Individuals decide for themselves, not for mankind.
These individuals then come together and discuss their opinions, agree on some things and disagree on others. Some will have sophisticated, well reasoned opinions, others will not.

 

[Par5]

.

Thanks for that link. Some interesting stuff there. I have always enjoyed Matt Dillahunty on Athiest Experience. He is usually more knowledgeable about the contents of the bible than most of the Christians who call his show.

 

[Par5]

You only believe slavery is an immoral practice because Christians were the ones fighting against slavery.
Probably your god would had taught them about the free market and capitalism.

Oh dear! If that's the best you can come up with then I suggest you go back to bed.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

This is what you are forced to reduce yourself to, just because you can't bring yourself to acknowledge that slavery is an evil practice and that your religion doesn't actually have a problem with it.

Because men are evil, practices like slavery exist. That is the bottom line. Not all forms of slavery are equal, forms such as indentured servitude involve willful contractual slavery. What we cannot do is blame God for the evils of men, if we do, we deny secondary chains of causality of free agents.

 

[Brother Billy]

Because men are evil, practices like slavery exist. That is the bottom line. Not all forms of slavery are equal, forms such as indentured servitude involve willful contractual slavery. What we cannot do is blame God for the evils of men, if we do, we deny secondary chains of causality of free agents.

That would be true, except that God explicitly told the Hebrews they could have both indentured servitude and chattel slavery. See my original post on this thread. The Hebrews were following Gods orders!

 

[RDKirk]

God couldn’t just tell people to give up all of their slaves, it had to be done slowly, Paul obviously did not see anything wrong with slavery because it was normal back then.

Paul could not do anything to end slavery in the Roman empire, and fixing the Roman empire was not his mission. But Paul did see something wrong with slavery.

Regarding entering into debt slavery, Paul said:

You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of human beings. -- 1 Corinthians 7

He did outlaw for Christians kidnapping persons to be slaves, and his instructions to those who became Christians while owning slaves made their slaves moral responsibilities accountable to Jesus for their welfare:

And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him. Ephesians 6

Paul also pointed out:

There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male and female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus. -- Galatians 3

Here there is no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all Colossians 3

It's also no accident that Paul's private letter to Philemon--intended to secure freedom for a slave--was preserved by them as instruction for the entire Church. Those people understood its ramifications and implications.

BTW, Philemon was a Colossian himself. So not only did he hear in the general letter "there is no...slave or free," but he also got the letter asking for Onesimus' freedom.

This is an important point, because the Greeks and Romans philosophically justified slavery as having been instituted by the gods, and the "slave class" was by the will of the gods. But Paul instructed such was not the case with Jesus.

 

[RDKirk]

I would have said that humans aren't to be treated as personal property.

Sounds easy enough.

As Matt Dilahunty put it once: "He's GOD.... if he can tell you not to eat shrimp, he sure as hell can tell you not to keep slaves!"

He apparently could not tell Bronze Age men not to divorce their wives--as Jesus pointed out, "because your hearts were hard."

God had said even back then that He limited His commands to things that were not too hard for them to do.

 

[RDKirk]

Not exactly. The Bible had both chattel slavery and indentured servitude. Only the former was comparable with the African slave trade because both reduced people to objects that could be owned. Remember that the American slavery system was based on the Bible (See Yes, Biblical Slavery Was the Same as American Slavery) - the Bibles laws on slavery were referenced in American Laws on slavery.

If that were true, why were most Christians both in America opposed to slavery in America?