Why would a benevolent god condone slavery?

[RDKirk]

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.

No, it wasn't "humans." It was, specifically, Christians. And only Christians and those surrounded by the influence of Christianity.

 

[RDKirk]

You are referring to Exodus 21:16: "Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper's possession.

The man-stealing law was a prohibition against kidnapping. It didn't prohibit:

• enslaving non-Hebrew enemy captives taking during war (Explicitly allowed by Deuteronomy 20:10-18)
  
• buying non-Hebrew slaves at the markets (Explicitly allowed by Leviticus 25:44-46).

Being mostly devout Christians, the Americans who put in place the system of slavery in the US, went to great pains to ensure that their slavery laws were consistent with the Bible's laws on slavery. Remember that Christian churches supported slavery in the US and even owned slaves themselves (Christianity and Slavery: The role of the Church). It was only after the Abolitionism Movement started to gain widespread support that the churches decided that slavery was actually a bad idea.

The following article shows that slavery in the US was almost exactly the same as that in the Bible:

Yes, Biblical Slavery Was the Same as American Slavery

Turning to the question of how most African slaves became slaves: According to John K. Thornton, Europeans usually bought enslaved people who were captured in endemic warfare between African states. Some Africans had made a business out of capturing Africans from neighboring ethnic groups or war captives and selling them. I would imagine that non-Hebrews obtained their slaves in a similar way in ancient times.

The American laws that regulated slavery was based on the Bible:

Extract from Wikipedia: (History of slavery in Massachusetts - Wikipedia)

In 1641, Massachusetts passed its Body of Liberties which gave legal sanction to certain kinds of slavery:

There shall never be any bond slaverie, villinage or captivitie amongst us unless it be lawfull captives taken in just warres, and such strangers as willingly selle themselves or are sold to us. And these shall have all the liberties and Christian usages which the law of God established in Israell concerning such persons doeth morally require. This exempts none from servitude who shall be judged thereto by Authoritie

Wiecek notes that the reference to "strangers" is derived from Leviticus 25: 39–55 and explains that they could be ruled and sold as slaves.[12][14] For the Puritans and citizens of the colony, "strangers" would eventually mean Native Americans and Africans.[12] Even though the Body of Liberties excluded many forms of slavery, it did recognize four legitimate bases of slavery.[12] Slaves could legally be obtained if they were captives resulting from war, sold themselves into slavery, were purchased as slaves from elsewhere, or were sentenced to slavery through the governing authority.[15] This made Massachusetts the first colony to authorize slavery through legislation.[15] In 1670, Massachusetts made it legal for the children of slaves to be sold into bondage.[16] By 1680, the colony had laws restricting the movements of blacks.[16] A 1703 law required owners to post a bond for all slaves to protect towns in the case that a slave became indigent should the master refuse to continue caring for him or her.[2]

In Biblical times, slaves were supposed to be treated humanely and their treatment was regulated by Biblical law.” The same was applicable in America:

• the 1739 South Carolina code limited the number of hours that slaves could be made to work and fined anyone who killed a slave £700.
• The 1833 Alabama law code dictated, “Any person who shall maliciously dismember or deprive a slave of life, shall suffer such punishment as would be inflicted in case the like offense had been committed on a free white person.”
• 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
  
• 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
• The South Carolina slave code was revised in 1739, with the following amendments:[46]
  No slave could be taught to write, work on Sunday, or work more than 15 hours per day in summer and 14 hours in winter.
  The willful killing of a slave was fined £700, and "passion" killing £350.

And American Abolitionists such as Roger Williams (founder of the first Baptist congregation in America) were telling them they were morally wrong as early as 1644.

 

[Brother Billy]

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.

Are you saying that God didn't want to make a law that he thought people would have difficulty in following? What about "Thou shalt not commit adultery" or "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s goods.” Not only have humans always had great difficulty in following these, these are minor in comparison with chattel slavery. Why the inconsistency?

A good moral teacher doesn't tell his followers that they can engage in immoral behavior if they find it difficult to refrain from it. He tells them what ideals they should aspire to. Where does God tell the Hebrews that slavery is wrong?

 

[Brother Billy]

And American Abolitionists such as Roger Williams (founder of the first Baptist congregation in America) were telling them they were morally wrong as early as 1644.

Apparently there were non-Christians who lived before Jesus who recognized that slavery was wrong and tried to ban it.

Timeline of abolition of slavery and serfdom - Wikipedia

 

[Not David]

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

When you tell me where you get your morality from.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

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!

The surrounding context for the Leviticus passage is:

Leviticus 25:39 ‘And if one of your brethren who dwells by you becomes poor, and sells himself to you, you shall not compel him to serve as a slave. 40 ‘As a hired servant and a sojourner he shall be with you, and shall serve you until the Year of Jubilee. 41 ‘And then he shall depart from you–he and his children with him–and shall return to his own family. He shall return to the possession of his fathers. 42 ‘For they are My servants, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt; they shall not be sold as slaves. . 43 ‘You shall not rule over him with rigor, but you shall fear your God.
​

and..

47 ‘Now if a sojourner or stranger close to you becomes rich, and one of your brethren who dwells by him becomes poor, and sells himself to the stranger or sojourner close to you, or to a member of the stranger’s family, 48 ‘after he is sold he may be redeemed again. One of his brothers may redeem him; 49 ‘or his uncle or his uncle’s son may redeem him; or anyone who is near of kin to him in his family may redeem him; or if he is able he may redeem himself. 50 ‘Thus he shall reckon with him who bought him: The price of his release shall be according to the number of years, from the year that he was sold to him until the Year of Jubilee; it shall be according to the time of a hired servant for him.​

and now the quoted passage from your original post...

44 ‘And as for your male and female slaves whom you may have–from the nations that are around you, from them you may buy male and female slaves. 45 ‘Moreover you may buy the children of the strangers who dwell among you, and their families who are with you, which they beget in your land; and they shall become your property. 46 ‘And you may take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them as a possession; they shall be your permanent slaves. But regarding your brethren, the children of Israel, you shall not rule over one another with rigor.
​

Notice the word "may"? Does not say "shall". And strangers could be redeemed, in other words released from their enslavement/servitude. In short, slavery in ancient Israel times practiced according to the Law, was quite different from slavery in America.

 

[Brother Billy]

No, it wasn't "humans." It was, specifically, Christians. And only Christians and those surrounded by the influence of Christianity.

I have four responses:

1)The Abolitionist Movement ignored 1 Corinthians 7:17-24, which says "each person should live as a believer in whatever situation the Lord has assigned to them, just as God has called them."

The fact that it also says "although if you can gain your freedom, do so." is just an afterthought of no real help to the slave. It is effectively saying if your master lets you go, then take your freedom. I can imagine a slaves response to be "Gee, thanks for nothing!"

2)Virtually everyone called themselves a Christian at that time, whether they were true believers or not. There are many non-believers today who work tirelessly to end slavery - what makes you think there weren't any in the 1800s? Did the morals of atheists change that much?

3)The Catholic church did not oppose the institution of slavery until the practice had already become infamous in most parts of the world. In most cases, the churches and church leaders did not condemn slavery until the 17th century. See:
The Role of the Roman Catholic Church in Slavery - Global Black History

4)Christian slave-owners in the South justified slavery using the Bible

Many southern Christians felt that slavery, in one Baptist minister’s words, “stands as an institution of God.” Here are some common arguments made by Christians at the time:

• Abraham, the “father of faith,” and all the patriarchs held slaves without God’s disapproval (Gen. 21:9–10).
• Canaan, Ham’s son, was made a slave to his brothers (Gen. 9:24–27).
• The Ten Commandments mention slavery twice, showing God’s implicit acceptance of it (Ex. 20:10, 17).
• Slavery was widespread throughout the Roman world, and yet Jesus never spoke against it.
• The apostle Paul specifically commanded slaves to obey their masters (Eph. 6:5–8).
• Paul returned a runaway slave, Philemon, to his master (Philem. 12).

 

[Brother Billy]

The surrounding context for the Leviticus passage is:

Leviticus 25:39 ‘And if one of your brethren who dwells by you becomes poor, and sells himself to you, you shall not compel him to serve as a slave. 40 ‘As a hired servant and a sojourner he shall be with you, and shall serve you until the Year of Jubilee. 41 ‘And then he shall depart from you–he and his children with him–and shall return to his own family. He shall return to the possession of his fathers. 42 ‘For they are My servants, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt; they shall not be sold as slaves. . 43 ‘You shall not rule over him with rigor, but you shall fear your God.
​

Notice the underlined words... This passage is telling the Hebrews that if a Hebrew sells himself to another Hebrew as an indentured servant, then he and his family shall be set free in the Year of Jubilee. This isn't really relevant to this thread which focuses on Hebrews owning non-Hebrews as chattel slaves.

and..

47 ‘Now if a sojourner or stranger close to you becomes rich, and one of your brethren who dwells by him becomes poor, and sells himself to the stranger or sojourner close to you, or to a member of the stranger’s family, 48 ‘after he is sold he may be redeemed again. One of his brothers may redeem him; 49 ‘or his uncle or his uncle’s son may redeem him; or anyone who is near of kin to him in his family may redeem him; or if he is able he may redeem himself. 50 ‘Thus he shall reckon with him who bought him: The price of his release shall be according to the number of years, from the year that he was sold to him until the Year of Jubilee; it shall be according to the time of a hired servant for him.​

​

Notice the underlined portion. This again is only relevant to Hebrew indentured servants. The requirement to release these servants in the Year of Jubilee also applied to Non-Hebrew Masters. The law also stated that the family of Hebrew indentured servants could redeem him before his contractual time ended by paying a sum to his master. Obviously, this only applied to non-Hebrew slavemasters who lived with the Hebrews and so were subject to the Mosaic Laws.

and now the quoted passage from your original post...

44 ‘And as for your male and female slaves whom you may have–from the nations that are around you, from them you may buy male and female slaves. 45 ‘Moreover you may buy the children of the strangers who dwell among you, and their families who are with you, which they beget in your land; and they shall become your property. 46 ‘And you may take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them as a possession; they shall be your permanent slaves. But regarding your brethren, the children of Israel, you shall not rule over one another with rigor.
​

Notice the word "may"? Does not say "shall". And strangers could be redeemed, in other words released from their enslavement/servitude. In short, slavery in ancient Israel times practiced according to the Law, was quite different from slavery in America.

In the second passage you quoted, "stranger" refers to a Non-Hebrews slavemaster. In the last passage you quote, "strangers" is referring to Non-Hebrew slaves and there is no mention of them having to be released in the Year of Jubilee. In fact, it explicitly states that they are permanent property!

I see you highlighted the word "may" in the third passage. Yes I agree that Hebrews could buy non-Hebrew slaves if they wanted to - They weren't being ordered to buy slaves as I stated (my mistake).

 

[Par5]

When you tell me where you get your morality from.

Well, I don't get it from the bible that's for sure. What is moral behaviour and what is not is very subjective. I don't think anyone is born with the full moral package and anyway, the ideas on morality are so diverse that it is not possible to define what the complete package is. As a child, my parents taught me about things like empathy, consideration for others, not to always put your own needs first. I suppose it was their version of the golden rule. Armed with that you still have to go into the world and put it into practice but we all make mistakes and do things that perhaps we should not have done.
As I said before, everyone's idea of what is moral and what is not is different. I think slavery and genocide are wrong and immoral, but judging by many of the posts from Christians on this particular thread, slavery and genocide don't fall into the wrong and immoral category.

 

[Brother Billy]

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.

Yes Matt has some really good arguments. Other people I love listening to are Sean Carrol (Physicist) and Frans de Waal (Primatetologist).

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

Indeed. He was a fundamentalist for most of his life, after all and was studying to become a preacher / pastor / something like that.

I always chuckle when some guy calls in saying "I want to talk to you about verse <insert verse>" after which Matt immediatly picks in and then, by heart, tells him what that verse says.

Oftenly you can literally hear the guy calling in "choking" thinking "oeps, this guy knows..."

Then he makes his point and Matt then counters explaining how the guy is wrong about his own religion.

Matt has a gift of being able to really nail down issues.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Because men are evil, practices like slavery exist. That is the bottom line.

And your holy book regulates, condones and explicitly allows slavery as well as slave trade.
So I guess your holy book is just as evil then...

Not all forms of slavery are equal, forms such as indentured servitude involve willful contractual slavery.

Slavery is slavery. It's treating people as personal property.
Not that this matters, because slavery in the bible isn't just about "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.

Is the bible representative of God's opinions and morals?

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

The OT explicitly regulates and allows slavery and slave trade.
It gives many detailed instructions on how to enslave people, how to make people slaves for life, how you can beat them, how you can buy/sell them, how your kids can inherit them, etc etc.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

That's an obvious falsehood.
If the majority of christians, which would be the majority of americans, were opposed to slavery, then the US wouldn't have engaged in the practice on such a massive scale.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yes Matt has some really good arguments. Other people I love listening to are Sean Carrol (Physicist) and Frans de Waal (Primatetologist).

I like Tracie Harris, another co-host of the Atheist Experience (not sure if she still does it), a lot too.

 

[Par5]

I like Tracie Harris, another co-host of the Atheist Experience (not sure if she still does it), a lot too.

Yes, Tracie Harris is still co-hosting the show. She and Matt make for a very strong team when it comes to discussing Christianity.

 

[Halbhh]

The OT explicitly regulates and allows slavery and slave trade.
It gives many detailed instructions on how to enslave people, how to make people slaves for life, how you can beat them, how you can buy/sell them, how your kids can inherit them, etc etc.

Why didn't God just outlaw slavery entirely to begin with?

The goal was/is real change for the better. Not merely stating a Law, but people obeying it.

(Background: Slavery was the normal human practice around the world then. Our modern forms are more diverse and less visible, including subtle forms like intentional underpaying of workers even when a company could pay them more easily and still make nice profits.)

So, the goal is real change, up to the real good: "So in everything [including pay of workers, kindness to strangers, everything], do to others as you would have them do to you."

How to get there?

Israel was given 10 commandments, even half of which can be summarized very simply for us modern Christians as "Love your neighbor as yourself."

And they failed to obey this simple Law during the Exodus journey. Over and over.

And that was only the start of the endless failure to obey the simple 10 commandment Law.

Even after gaining the new land, Israel would break the Law not just occasionally, but over and over and over and over.

The general Law, not being followed, then resulted in what I call micro regulations (my wording) -- little detailed rules given to make people better able to do what they should, and what they could in practice, as they were, the people they were.

Baby steps.

Little regulations, like little steps, upward out of the morass of evil and wrong, tiny steps up, one at a time, to lift them out of their wrong and bad ways of treating each other.

Little steps they could actually manage.

And these micro regulations actually help, over time, in a progression, for a larger portion of people.

e.g. -- Instead of 3% obedience, a higher amount happens, like perhaps 15% or 25% even, and later in time higher, like 60%, 80% even, in later generations.

Progression.

Today in 2018, because only some people follow Matthew 7:12, we have our own secular micro regulations --

Detailed. (Think Kavanaugh; what if Kavanaugh knew the little rules):
Maryland Rape and Sexual Assault Laws - FindLaw

This is our secular law -- little detailed bits -- today in the U.S.

Because only some people obey "In everything, do to others as you would have them do to you".

Do you think we could chuck (discard) our own secular laws, that slow progression in our own secular law, like the Maryland Rape and Sexual Assault Laws?

Seems the American experience is that we need baby steps upward over time. In America. Today.

Just like in the Old Testament.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

In the second passage you quoted, "stranger" refers to a Non-Hebrews slavemaster. In the last passage you quote, "strangers" is referring to Non-Hebrew slaves and there is no mention of them having to be released in the Year of Jubilee. In fact, it explicitly states that they are permanent property!

I see you highlighted the word "may" in the third passage. Yes I agree that Hebrews could buy non-Hebrew slaves if they wanted to - They weren't being ordered to buy slaves as I stated (my mistake).

I would like to continue but my background cultural knowledge of Hebrew or slavery and the Israelites is lacking. Our culture and times are so far removed from those ancient times it is difficult to understand. In Hebrew Israelite culture men were also permitted to have numerous wives and concubines but Jesus said it was because of the hardness of their hearts meaning it was not according to the prescriptive will of God or His design for marriage. I could not imagine being married to more than one woman, one is more than I can handle sometimes, same with children, we only have one and he alone is sometimes more than we can handle. One thing worth noting though, the text does not use the word "property" of slaves. I suspect they were to be treated with kindness and dignity in accordance with the "love thy neighbor" Leviticus 19:9-18 principal and the Hebrew were commanded to love the Lord with all of their heart, mind, and soul. I do not believe any human being with the love of God flowing through them, could look at another human being as personal property. Sadly most human beings have hardened hearts and the love of God is not in them, and this applies to most of the Hebrews as well, many were called but few chosen. Sorry for the lack of background cultural information, but I hope this adds a little perspective.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

And your holy book regulates, condones and explicitly allows slavery as well as slave trade. So I guess your holy book is just as evil then...

Sorry but that is not even logical thinking. See the fallacy of composition and affirming the consequent.

Slavery is slavery. It's treating people as personal property.

Fallacy of equivocation. And incorrect.

Not that this matters, because slavery in the bible isn't just about "contractual slavery".

What is it about then? Where is it commanded to treat people like personal property?

Is the bible representative of God's opinions and morals?

It is Revelation from God to men, it is primary concerned with redemption and progressive covenants dealing with salvation. God does not speak in manner of opinions and among other things, the Pentateuch is representative of the moral failures of men revealed by the Holy Law of God. Not even Moses was permitted to enter the "promised land" (Deuteronomy 1:35).

 

[Par5]

Sorry but that is not even logical thinking. See the fallacy of composition and affirming the consequent.



Fallacy of equivocation. And incorrect.



What is it about then? Where is it commanded to treat people like personal property?



It is Revelation from God to men, it is primary concerned with redemption and progressive covenants dealing with salvation. God does not speak in manner of opinions and among other things, the Pentateuch is representative of the moral failures of men revealed by the Holy Law of God. Not even Moses was permitted to enter the "promised land" (Deuteronomy 1:35).

There was no need for a command to treat slaves as property because it was always taken as read that they were the property of the slave owner.
One of the regulations that you believe was given by the biblical god regarding the keeping of slaves indicated that the biblical god already looked on slaves as the property of their master.
From Exodus. "When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money."

"....for the slave is his money." In other words, the slave is his property, he bought the slave as you would a piece of merchandise.