Why would a benevolent god condone slavery?

[Brother Billy]

"My question is, if an omnipotent and benevolent god exists and he gave these laws to humans, why would he condone slavery? A benevolent god and a god that condoned slavery is a contradiction. Either the god of the bible exists, in which case he isn't benevolent or he doesn't exist."

Your whole argument (and initial post) is based on several logical fallacies.
Including but not limited to:
Faulty Appeal to Authority:
Special Pleading:
Propositional Fallacy:
Appeal to Emotion:
The Complex Question:
Bifurcation:

How so? Do you accept that God condones chattel slavery?

 

[Par5]

Many evils, including brutal slavery and the special extreme evil of murder of children and many others evils were done by wrong acting people throughout all the Bible.

And many wars. And many other causes of mortal death of this temporary body.

Do i think all war is wrong though? No, i think many wars are wrong, but not all.

When the state executes someone, or conducts war, is that 'murder ' in your view? Trying to understand your view.

Just to be sure you don't reimagine what i believe, again, i believe in the afterlife.

When God removes innocent people from this temporary mortal life into the next life to come, the eternal one, that's not 'murder' because they are alive.

Does that make logical sense?

Humans can murder, but God will rescue when they do. Humans can kill in war, but God will rescue those that die who deserve to live.

Does that make sense?

No, your take on biblical slavery does not make sense,
This does make sense,

 

[Strathos]

No, your take on biblical slavery does not make sense,
This does make sense,

Hypothetical: Would you watch a 35 minute video from a flat earther that supposedly debunked a round earth?

If not, why do you expect anyone to watch that?

 

[Mountainmanbob]

Overview

The bible explicitly endorses two types of slavery....indentured servitude (for Hebrews) and chattel slavery (for non-Hebrews). With indentured servitude, a person voluntarily agreed to sell his labor to his master for a temporary period of time after which the servant would be granted some kind of remuneration. With chattel slavery (the type of slavery that existed in America during the 1800s), the slave was the permanent property of his master. Most Christians acknowledge that indentured servitude existed for Hebrews, so I won't discuss this. I want to concentrate on the slavery that applied to non-Hebrews (i.e. chattel slavery). Below I will show that the Hebrews got their chattel slaves by buying them or capturing them during war.

Obtaining slaves through purchase

Leviticus 25:44-46 says that the Hebrews can buy non-Hebrew slaves as permanent property. This is in contrast to Hebrew indentured servants who entered into a contract with their masters for a set period (7 years). Indentured servants couldn't be bequeathed as inheritance because they were not considered permanent property. Also, notice that this passage makes a distinction between the treatment of Hebrews servants who are not to be treated ruthlessly like non-Hebrews were.

Obtaining slaves through warfare

The second way chattel slaves could be obtained is by attacking foreign cities and enslaving the inhabitants. Deuteronomy 20:10-18 says that when the Hebrews attacked a non-Hebrew city they made an offer to the inhabitants:
(1) surrender and pay a tribute (i.e. they would be forced to work for the Hebrews) OR
(2) the men would be slaughtered and women/children and livestock taken as plunder.

In case (2), women and children are described as plunder, which is property that is (usually violently) acquired by the victor during a war. Here the Hebrews could march into a house of the conquered city and drag out any women and children and enslave them. These weren't combatants and posed little treat to the Hebrews, but they were of economic value.

Why is slavery wrong?

Today we recognize that slavery is immoral because slavery, by its very nature, is a violation of a person’s liberty. It reduces people into objects that can be owned. Some apologists claim that slaves were treated with kindness and not abused like black slaves in America were. Even if this was true, this makes no difference to the morality of owning another person as property - slavery was and will always be immoral. Other apologists argue that these laws are no longer in force. Again this is irrelevant. The fact is that there was a point in history where god thought that owning another person as property (chattel slavery) was okay.

My question is, if an omnipotent and benevolent god exists and he gave these laws to humans, why would he condone slavery? A benevolent god and a god that condoned slavery is a contradiction. Either the god of the bible exists, in which case he isn't benevolent or he doesn't exist.

Christian apologists respond to the above

Below is an excellent video which counters many of the objections that apologists have on this subject:

Below, I've listed a few of the common objections that people have made under this thread, together with my response.

Claim 1: Exodus 21:16 bans the practice of slavery

No it doesn't. Exodus 21:16 says "Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper's possession." This verse is about kidnapping and says nothing about slave traders or slave holders in general. The main ways that Hebrews were legally allowed to acquire slaves were through purchase or inheritance (Leviticus 25:44-46) or warfare (Deuteronomy 20:10-18). Slaves could also be obtained if a female slave gave birth since her children automatically became slaves as well. Exodus 21:6 also provides a means by which a master could turn a Hebrew indentured servant into a permanent slave.

Claim 2: Deuteronomy 23:15-16 shows slavery was voluntary because a slave could leave if he was abused

This is not true. Deuteronomy 23:15-16 says: “You shall not give up to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. He shall dwell with you, in your midst, in the place that he shall choose within one of your towns, wherever it suits him. You shall not wrong him."

Take note of the underlined portion above. The law is telling Hebrews to allow slaves who have escaped their foreign masters in foreign lands to settle in one of their (Hebrew) towns.

Even if it did apply to all slaves, it just meant that Hebrew masters had to keep their slaves locked up if they thought that they might escape. It doesn't mean that slaves were free to leave when they chose.

Claim 3: Slavery in 17th-19th century America was unbiblical

No, slavery in the America was based on the Bible. See Yes, Biblical Slavery Was the Same as American Slavery and History of slavery in Massachusetts - Wikipedia.

Claim 4: Slavery in the Bible was more enlightened than that of 17th-19th century America

Even granting this point for the sake of argument, this fails to answer the simple question: is owning another human ever moral, or not? The relative kindness of a slave owner does not enter into the basic moral question of owning other humans as property.

Even if you thought that the morality of slavery is influenced by how well a slave is treated, what evidence is there that slaves were treated any better than in America? There were laws in the Bible that protected slaves from being abused:

• Killing a slave merited punishment. (Ex 21:20)
  
• Permanently injured slaves had to be set free (Ex 21:26-27)
  
• Slaves who ran away from oppressive masters were effectively freed (Dt 23:15-16)
  
• The law also gave slaves a day of rest every week (Ex 20:10, Dt 5:14).

However, 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.

• 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:
  • No slave could 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.

Does this mean American slaves were not mistreated? What evidence is there 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.

Claim 5: God tolerated slavery just like he tolerated divorce, because of the "hardness of peoples hearts", he knew they wouldn't obey him

Do you really think that God wouldn't make a law if he thought that people might have difficulty following it? 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?

Claim 6: Christians brought an end to slavery in the US

Christians may have been responsible for ending slavery in the US, but remember virtually everyone identified as a Christian at the time. Also Christians on both sides of the slavery debate used the Bible to justify their views.

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, who supported slavery at the time:

• Abraham, the “father of faith,” and all the patriarchs held slaves without God’s disapproval (Genesis 21:9-10).
• Canaan, Ham’s son, was made a slave to his brothers (Genesis 9:24-27).
• The Ten Commandments mention slavery twice, showing God’s implicit acceptance of it (Exodus 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 (
  Ephesians 6:5-8).
• Paul returned a runaway slave, Philemon, to his master (Philemon 12).

While there were also many Christians who opposed slavery, they picked and chose the verses that supported their cause and ignored or interpreted away the verses that didn't. In particular they 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 more of an afterthought and of no real help to the slave. It effectively said: “if your master lets you go, then take your freedom”. I can imagine a slaves response to be "Gee, thanks for nothing!"

Also remember that although the Abolitionist Movement used religious arguments against slavery, there there were also many enlightenment thinkers who condemned slavery on humanistic grounds. People realized that slavery was deeply immoral because:

• It reduces people to objects that can be owned
• Increases leads to a great deal of suffering
• It exploits and degrades human beings
• It violates basic human rights
• It perpetuates the abuse of children

My view is that the Abolitionist Movement was successful in ending slavery, in spite of, and not because of Christianity or the Bible.

Claim 7: Jesus was against slavery

Jesus refers to slaves and their masters in his parables as if slavery was the natural order of the day. Slaves in the parable of the prodigal son perform routine work in the background of the estate (Luke 15:22, Luke 15:26). Other parables depict cruel treatment of slaves, such as the parable of the wicked tenants. Slaves are disposable: they suffer beatings and death at the hands of tenants (Matt 21:33-44, Mark 12:1-12, Luke 20:9-18). Other New Testament writers accepted violence against slaves as normal as seen in these parables (see Matt 18:23-35, Luke 19:11-27). If Jesus thought that "love thy neighbor" was inconsistent with keeping slaves as property, don't you think it is strange that he never spoke out against slavery or at the very least, told his followers that slavery was not ideal?

Claim 8: The Golden Rule effectively banned slavery

The Golden Rule was not a pronouncement against slavery! If it was, why wasn’t it obvious to the large swaths of “Founded as a Christian Nation” America for over 200 years?

Also Matthew 7:12 is just Jesus repeating Leviticus 19:11-18. Jesus’ audience, well-versed in their scriptures, would have known that he was quoting from Leviticus, one of the “Five Books of Moses.” They would also have known that these books include Deuteronomy, which commands Israel to invade and enslave distant cities, and Exodus, which says that slaves are just “property” and may be beaten so severely that they can’t even get up for just shy of two days. Unless we are prepared to say that one book of the Pentateuch contradicts another, it’s hard to see how the Golden Rule in Leviticus overrides the slavery passages Deuteronomy and Exodus — at least not for Jesus’ audience.

For that matter, Leviticus itself grants Israel permission to buy foreign slaves. Would Jesus’ audience have thought Leviticus could contradict itself? Would Jesus? Would today’s Bible-believing Christians? I don’t think so.

So, in the minds of Jesus’ audience, and possibly for Jesus himself, it would have been far from obvious that the Golden Rule outlawed slavery. In their minds, the two concepts had coexisted in the scriptures, presumably without contradiction, for centuries.

If Jesus had intended his statement of Leviticus 19:18 to override the slavery commands and regulations also found in the Five Books of Moses, surely he would have made that more obvious to an audience for whom those books were a central feature of spiritual life.

Regardless of the above, if Jesus meant the Golden Rule as a command to abolish slavery, then millions of slaves in the next 1800 years would wish he had made his intent far more obvious.

Claim 9: Chattel slavery was God’s punishment against wicked nations

If slaves were acquired during war as described in Deuteronomy 20:10-18 for punishment, it seems bizarre that God would 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 enslaved. God, being omnipotent, could easily have made every wicked individual drop down dead if he wanted while sparing the innocent ones. However he ordered these innocents to be punished as well.

Regardless of the above, slaves weren't only acquired during war. Leviticus 25:44-46 says non-Hebrew slaves could be purchased from non-Hebrews who lived among the Hebrews themselves or from non-Hebrew nations during peacetime. How is this punishing wicked nations?

Claim 10: God desired the end of slavery, but it had to be done gradually because of the social, cultural and economic dynamics at the time

Why would an omni-benevolent god tolerate one of the most evil practices ever created, because of economics or social customs? There are numerous examples in the Old testament where God killed Hebrews by the thousands because they didn't follow his instructions to the letter. It seems bizarre that he would balk at telling them to give up their slaves.

If God really desired the end of slavery, he could just end slavery (he never did). Failing that, he could make clear in the Bible that he disapproves and that we should stop it (he never did). Failing that, his earthly representation as Jesus could make it clear that he disapproves (he never did). Failing that, one of the epistle writers could make clear that he disapproves so the Bible could say at least something against slavery (no one ever did). Exodus and Leviticus have extensive lists of laws that ban all sorts of behavior, everything from murder, adultery, incest, rape, inappropriate behavior with animals....why not slavery too?

For whose social/cultural/economic benefit did God condone slavery for anyway? The slave-owners or the slaves themselves? What could be worse than being the property of another person, being forced to labor for no wages, being forced to stay with your master, seeing your wife and children treated as cattle, etc?

Once we get to heaven all will be understood.

For the ones that get to heaven.

It's not good to question God nor His Word.

Problem with man is he's always thinking he knows what's fair. Believers need to remember when God put Job into his place.

M-Bob

 

[Brother Billy]

Once we get to heaven all will be understood.

For the ones that get to heaven.

It's not good to question God nor His Word.

Problem with man is he's always thinking he knows what's fair. Believers need to remember when God put Job into his place.

M-Bob

Take your threats elsewhere my friend. If you can't motivate your answer, don't waste your time responding here. This is a debate forum, not a preaching forum.

 

[Par5]

Hypothetical: Would you watch a 35 minute video from a flat earther that supposedly debunked a round earth?

If not, why do you expect anyone to watch that?

Why? Because this video is not about some screwball flat earth belief. It is about slavery, which isn't a screwball belief, it's a fact, and the video shows why biblical slavery was not the social welfare programme that many Christians say it was and it uses the bible's own words to demonstrate just that.

 

[Mountainmanbob]

the video shows why biblical slavery was not the social welfare programme that many Christians say it

Never heard any preaching referring to slavery in that manner.
M-Bob

 

[Strathos]

Why? Because this video is not about some screwball flat earth belief. It is about slavery, which isn't a screwball belief, it's a fact, and the video shows why biblical slavery was not the social welfare programme that many Christians say it was and it uses the bible's own words to demonstrate just that.

The flat earther would say that their video is just as logical and reasonable as you say yours is.

 

[Par5]

Never heard any preaching referring to slavery in that manner.
M-Bob

It would have been more accurate for me to have said that one would think some Christians were talking about a welfare programme for the destitute instead of something that deprives a human being of their freedom, be considered no more than property, that allows them to be beaten and have their children and wives used as an inheritance. One Christian poster on this thread actually tried to make out that the way a slave was treated was comparable to the way I would raise my children.

 

[Mountainmanbob]

One Christian poster on this thread actually tried to make out that the way a slave was treated was comparable to the way I would raise my children.

Understood.
Some can get under my skin here as they try to put words in my mouth and act like they know who I am when the truth is they do not know me.

I guess it comes with the territory although there are some very kind ones.

Many blessings sent,
M-Bob

 

[Par5]

The flat earther would say that their video is just as logical and reasonable as you say yours is.

Yes, but the difference being, you know and I know that the flat earth video is not logical and reasonable. You can't compare a complete nonsense such as belief in a flat earth with the terrible reality of slavery!

 

[Strathos]

Yes, but the difference being, you know and I know that the flat earth video is not logical and reasonable. You can't compare a complete nonsense such as belief in a flat earth with the terrible reality of slavery!

The nonsense here is saying that the God of Bible is immoral.

 

[Brother Billy]

The nonsense here is saying that the God of Bible is immoral.

Did you read the first post on this thread? What specifically do you think is nonsense?

 

[Strathos]

Did you read the first post on this thread? What specifically do you think is nonsense?

Your interpretations of scripture and how they should apply to life today.

 

[Halbhh]

If God desired the end of slavery, he could just end slavery (he never did). Failing that, he could make clear in the Bible that he disapproves and that we should stop it (he never did). Failing that, his earthly representation as Jesus could make it clear that he disapproves (he never did). Failing that, one of the epistle writers could make clear that he disapproves so the Bible could say at least something against slavery (no one ever did). Exodus and Leviticus have extensive lists of laws that ban all sorts of behavior, everything from murder, adultery, incest, rape, inappropriate behavior with animals....why not slavery too?

Apologists often respond to the above by quoting Exodus 21:16 which says "Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper's possession."

This verse says nothing about slave traders or slave holders in general. Furthermore, the Hebrews never obtained their slaves by kidnapping. Instead they were obtain through purchase or war as described in my original post on this thread.

Each of the assertions you began with are falsified by the letter to Philemon.

12I am sending him—who is my very heart—back to you. 13I would have liked to keep him with me so that he could take your place in helping me while I am in chains for the gospel. 14But I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that any favor you do would not seem forced but would be voluntary.15Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back forever— 16no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a fellow man and as a brother in the Lord."

The slave is no longer a slave. But that's not all. He is now the full equal to his former owner.

Paul's writing the epistle to Philemon was by inspiration of the Spirit, thus the will of God. Christ is one with God also. But previous to Philemon, in Matthew 7:12, by using the word "everything", Christ struck the key blow against slavery, and Philemon is simply a logical outcome of the progression set in motion by Matthew 7:12.

If you were God, what would you have done?

 

[Brother Billy]

Your interpretations of scripture and how they should apply to life today.

I didn't interpret anything. I just quoted verses in the bible. When the bible talks about slaves, what do you think it was talking about?

 

[Halbhh]

Your interpretations of scripture and how they should apply to life today.

The OP writer was missing the scriptures that contradict his thesis and assertions, as written more succinctly in post #3, which begins with a string of false assertions. See post #318 just above for an example for a part of the missing scripture.

 

[Brother Billy]

Each of the assertions you began with are falsified by the letter to Philemon.

12I am sending him—who is my very heart—back to you. 13I would have liked to keep him with me so that he could take your place in helping me while I am in chains for the gospel. 14But I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that any favor you do would not seem forced but would be voluntary.15Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back forever— 16no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a fellow man and as a brother in the Lord."

The slave is no longer a slave. But that's not all. He is now the full equal to his former owner.

Paul's writing the epistle to Philemon was by inspiration of the Spirit, thus the will of God. Christ is one with God also. But previous to Philemon, in Matthew 7:12, by using the word "everything", Christ struck the key blow against slavery, and Philemon is simply a logical outcome of the progression set in motion by Matthew 7:12.

The OP writer was missing the scriptures that contradict his thesis and assertions, as written more succinctly in post #3, which begins with a string of false assertions. See post #318 just above for an example for a part of the missing scripture.

Just because he asked one master to release his slave doesn't necessarily mean he would have asked all masters to release all their slaves. And even if he did ask all masters to release all their slaves, how would that show that Paul thought that slavery was an evil practice or that it should be abolished? He might have thought its better to release slaves than to keep them, but that doesn't mean he thought it was evil to keep slaves. I think its preferable to let chickens run freely in egg-laying farms, but I don't think keeping chickens in cages is evil.

 

[Halbhh]

No, your take on biblical slavery does not make sense,
This does make sense,

I sort of agree in this particular way -- It makes no sense at all as endorsement or support of slavery for God to make this commandment He made:

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.

Not really much of an endorsement of the slavery status quo...

More like the start of a step by step revolution, with critical blow after critical blow.

Of course in America before 1865, slave owners infamously violated almost every law from even the Old Testament on slavery. And that's not even getting to the New Testament, where the final end of slavery begins, as shown in the letter to Philemon.

It's no wonder that the most effective workers in the abolition movements were Christians, like powerful evangelists such as Charles Spurgeon (who is still known as one of the great evangelists of all time) who reached tens and tens of thousands with powerful preaching.
Christian Abolitionism - Wikipedia

"In these venues Spurgeon frequently preached to audiences numbering more than 10,000. At 22, Spurgeon was the most popular preacher of the day.[7]"
Charles Spurgeon - Wikipedia

 

[Halbhh]

Just because he asked one master to release his slave doesn't necessarily mean he would have asked all masters to release all their slaves. And even if he did ask all masters to release all their slaves, how would that show that Paul thought that slavery was an evil practice or that it should be abolished? He might have thought its better to release slaves than to keep them, but that doesn't mean he thought it was evil to keep slaves. I think its preferable to let chickens run freely in egg-laying farms, but I don't think keeping chickens in cages is evil.

It's not possible to read Paul's epistles fully and imagine Paul didn't expect believers to progress in walking in the Spirit to become better followers of Christ, and put "love one another" into increasing fulfillment. The word "everything" [or "in all things", etc., depending on translation] in Matthew 7:12 spells the eventual end of slavery...

...which is very hard to root out of humanity.

Christian converts were to remain slaves for a time, in order to convert their masters.

But Philemon shows what happened after that slaver owner was converted.

The radical equality in Christ is unavoidable to the true believer.

Jesus is still radical, and still a revolution, and still threatens worldly power and injustice, and still is not comfortable for the rich and abusive to hear. They would rather He did not exist, or at least did not say what He did say.

It's no wonder false versions of Christianity arose, to satisfy the demand from those that wanted the pretense of being Christian, the approval, but not the true reality.

Christ is still very dangerous to the world status quo. He's a danger to those that keep and hold power over others, that their power is put at an end.

See?

If you are really against slavery, you are on the wrong side.

Jesus is the only One Who can truly end it in actual reality, in actual human hearts.

God has made the law against slavery, through Christ.

Will we listen to Him?