Split thread: Does the Bible speak out against slavery?

[DOC]

So, you still can't find a passage which says god is against slavery?

Exodus 21:16 "He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death."

Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond (slave) nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

The above passage says freeman and slaves are "equal" in Christ eyes.

1Corinthians 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether [we be] Jews or Gentiles, whether [we be] bond (slaves) or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

Once again slaves are considered equal to freeman before God's eyes.

1 Corinthians 7:22 For he that is called in the Lord, a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is called, [being] free, is Christ's servant.


Slaves are freeman in God's eyes.

Also this site does a good job covering the subject of slavery during Biblical times:

"First, we must recognize that the Bible does not say God supports slavery. In fact, the slavery described in the Old Testament was quite different from the kind of slavery we think of today - in which people are captured and sold as slaves. According to Old Testament law, anyone caught selling another person into slavery was to be executed:

"He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death." (Exodus 21:16)

So, obviously, slavery during Old Testament times was not what we commonly recognize as slavery, such as that practiced in the 17th century Americas, when Africans were captured and forcibly brought to work on plantations. [b]Unlike our modern government welfare programs, there was no safety-net for ancient Middle Easterners who could not provide a living for themselves. In ancient Israel, people who could not provide for themselves or their families sold them into slavery so they would not die of starvation or exposure. In this way, a person would receive food and housing in exchange for labor.

From the site: Does God approve Slavery According to the Bible?

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/slavery_bible.html

[Darat]

Exodus 21:16 "He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death."



That's an injunction against kidnapping not salvery .


Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond (slave) nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

The above passage says freeman and slaves are "equal" in Christ eyes.


Again that is not an injunction against slavery.


1Corinthians 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether [we be] Jews or Gentiles, whether [we be] bond (slaves) or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

Once again slaves are considered equal to freeman before God's eye's.



Again not an injunction against slavery.



1 Corinthians 7:22 For he that is called in the Lord, [being] a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is called, [being] free, is Christ's servant.


Once again slaves are freeman in God's eyes.

...snip...


Again not an injunction against slavery.

[scratchy]

All that says is that to Christ it doesnt matter if one is free or slave, anybodys soul can be saved. If he wanted to make a statement against slavery my advice would have been to make it a bit more obvious.

[DOC]

All that says is that to Christ it doesnt matter if one is free or slave, anybodys soul can be saved. If he wanted to make a statement against slavery my advice would have been to make it a bit more obvious.

Well He did say Love your neighbor as yourself, and Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Basically that's a way of saying slavery is wrong without getting killed immediately by the Roman authorities.

[H3LL]

DOC, I'll see your puny 5 verses and raise you 44 (OT and NT):

Slavery In The Bible

Leviticus 25:39
Leviticus 25:40
Leviticus 25:41
Leviticus 25:42
Leviticus 25:43
Leviticus 25:44
Leviticus 25:45
Leviticus 25:46
Exodus 21:2
Exodus 21:3
Exodus 21:4
Exodus 21:5
Exodus 21:6
Deuteronomy 15:12
Deuteronomy 15:13
Deuteronomy 15:14
Exodus 21:7
Exodus 21:8
Exodus 21:9
Exodus 21:10
Exodus 21:11
Exodus 21:12
Exodus 21:20
Exodus 21:21
Exodus 21:26
Exodus 21:27
Exodus 21:28
Exodus 21:29
Exodus 21:30
Exodus 21:31
Exodus 21:32
1 Peter 2:18
Ephesians 6:5
Ephesians 6:6
Ephesians 6:7
Ephesians 6:8
Ephesians 6:9
Titus 2:9
Titus 2:10
Colossians 3:22
Colossians 3:23
Colossians 3:24
Colossians 3:25
1 Timothy 6:1Your call......


Plus:

Biblical figures who kept slaves

Abraham
Boaz
Cornelius
Isaac
Philemon
Solomon

[Nogbad]

Christians slaves were encouraged to obey their masters - even more so if the master was a Christian. The Christian religion did not question the underlying economic principles of slavery at all.

What it did do was object to charging interest on loans. The reason so many Jews were involved in banking in medieval Europe was that it was OK for them to lend with interest to Non-Jews (they couldn't do so to other Jews though). Part of the European dislike of Jews stems from the simple but necessary bending of God's rules. The entire Western capitalist system is now based on lending and interest and is in direct contravention of Biblical teaching. The early Christians would be horrified to find that far from condemning this practice the Church participates. Lending with interest is condemned far more times in the Bible than say homosexuality.

[H3LL]

This says it all and it bewilders me that any female or person that considers slavery a bad thing would even open a bible or consider one of its religions knowing its content.


Sexual Activity with an Engaged Female Slave: A man who rapes or engages in consensual sex with a female slave who is engaged to be married to another man must sacrifice an animal in the temple in order to obtain God's forgiveness. The female slave would be whipped. There is apparently no punishment or ritual animal killing required if the female slave were not engaged; men could rape such slaves with impunity.
Source (http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl1.htm)

[Ravenwood]

Add these two to your 44. H3LL
Romans 6:15-22
1 Timothy 6:1-3

[DOC]

DOC, I'll see your puny 5 verses and raise you 44:

Slavery In The Bible

Leviticus 25:39
Leviticus 25:40
Leviticus 25:41
Leviticus 25:42
Leviticus 25:43
Leviticus 25:44
Leviticus 25:45
Leviticus 25:46
Exodus 21:2
Exodus 21:3
Exodus 21:4
Exodus 21:5
Exodus 21:6
Deuteronomy 15:12
Deuteronomy 15:13
Deuteronomy 15:14
Exodus 21:7
Exodus 21:8
Exodus 21:9
Exodus 21:10
Exodus 21:11
Exodus 21:12
Exodus 21:20
Exodus 21:21
Exodus 21:26
Exodus 21:27
Exodus 21:28
Exodus 21:29
Exodus 21:30
Exodus 21:31
Exodus 21:32
1 Peter 2:18
Ephesians 6:5
Ephesians 6:6
Ephesians 6:7
Ephesians 6:8
Ephesians 6:9
Titus 2:9
Titus 2:10
Colossians 3:22
Colossians 3:23
Colossians 3:24
Colossians 3:25
1 Timothy 6:1Your call......


Plus:

Biblical figures who kept slaves

Abraham
Boaz
Cornelius
Isaac
Philemon
Solomon


From the site Does God Approve of Slavery According to the Bible?
by Rich Deem

So, although there are rules about slavery in the Bible, those rules exist to protect the slave. Injuring or killing slaves was punishable - up to death of the offending party.1 Hebrews were commanded not to make their slave work on the Sabbath,2 slander a slave,3 have sex with another man's slave,4 or return an escaped slave.5 A Hebrew was not to enslave his fellow countryman, even if he owed him money, but was to have him work as a hired worker, and he was to be released in the year of jubilee (which occurred every seven years).6 In fact, the slave owner was encouraged to "pamper his slave".7
What the New Testament says about slavery

Since many of the early Christians were slaves to Romans,8 they were encouraged to become free if possible, but not worry about it if not possible.9

bolding put in by DOC

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/slavery_bible.html

[Nogbad]

It is true that one could not rape another person's slave - but that is true in all slave owning cultures. Slaves are property, like a car. If I went out and saw someone mistreating my car I would be none too pleased. There are laws about that sort of thing. I can mistreat my car if I choose (although it would make no sense) and slave owners could also mistreat their slaves although not so much that they were unable to work as that would be foolish.

[DOC]

DOC, I'll see your puny 5 verses and raise you 44:

Slavery In The Bible

Leviticus 25:39
Leviticus 25:40
Leviticus 25:41
Leviticus 25:42
Leviticus 25:43
Leviticus 25:44
Leviticus 25:45
Leviticus 25:46
Exodus 21:2
Exodus 21:3
Exodus 21:4
Exodus 21:5
Exodus 21:6
Deuteronomy 15:12
Deuteronomy 15:13
Deuteronomy 15:14
Exodus 21:7
Exodus 21:8
Exodus 21:9
Exodus 21:10
Exodus 21:11
Exodus 21:12
Exodus 21:20
Exodus 21:21
Exodus 21:26
Exodus 21:27
Exodus 21:28
Exodus 21:29
Exodus 21:30
Exodus 21:31
Exodus 21:32
1 Peter 2:18
Ephesians 6:5
Ephesians 6:6
Ephesians 6:7
Ephesians 6:8
Ephesians 6:9
Titus 2:9
Titus 2:10
Colossians 3:22
Colossians 3:23
Colossians 3:24
Colossians 3:25
1 Timothy 6:1Your call......


Plus:

Biblical figures who kept slaves

Abraham
Boaz
Cornelius
Isaac
Philemon
Solomon



From the site Does God Approve of Slavery According to the Bible?
by Rich Deem

So, although there are rules about slavery in the Bible, those rules exist to protect the slave. Injuring or killing slaves was punishable - up to death of the offending party.1 Hebrews were commanded not to make their slave work on the Sabbath,2 slander a slave,3 have sex with another man's slave,4 or return an escaped slave.5 A Hebrew was not to enslave his fellow countryman, even if he owed him money, but was to have him work as a hired worker, and he was to be released in the year of jubilee (which occurred every seven years).6 In fact, the slave owner was encouraged to "pamper his slave".7
What the New Testament says about slavery

Since many of the early Christians were slaves to Romans,8 they were encouraged to become free if possible, but not worry about it if not possible.9

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/slavery_bible.html

[H3LL]

How the ***** do you equate how to care for slaves (the modern equivalent of good car maintenance) with speaking out against slavery?

It's like saying Haynes (http://www.haynes.co.uk/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/StoreCatalogDisplay?storeId=10001&catalogId=10001) are anti-car.

Also you are one very sick puppy if you consider rape of un-engaged female slaves to be in no way "injuring" them.

DOC you are on a lose, lose, lose with this one.

Slavery was a fact of life in the bronze age. How do bronze age guides, in your words, aimed at illiterate herdsmen, have any relevance in the 21st century?

[DOC]

He who pampers his slave from childhood Will in the end find him to be a son. (Proverbs 29:21) New American Standard Bible


He that delicately bringeth up his servant from a child shall have him become [his] son at the length. (Proverbs 29:21) KJV

[Darat]

He who pampers his slave from childhood will in the end find him to be a son. (Proverbs 29:21)


That verse is telling you that treating your property well is a good ide - just like say a guide to cars will tell you regular maintenance will mean your car will last longer!

Again not an injuction against slvaery.


He that delicately bringeth up his servant from a child shall have him become [his] son at the length. (Proverbs 29:21) KJV

That is about servants not a slaves. However even if we allow that in this instance servant means the same as slave then as I said above it is only saying that to get the best out of your property you need to treat it well.

[Ladewig]

From the site Does God Approve of Slavery According to the Bible?
by Rich Deem

So, although there are rules about slavery in the Bible, those rules exist to protect the slave. Injuring or killing slaves was punishable - up to death of the offending party.

DOC, you gave this thread the title: Does God speak out against slavery in the Bible?

Are you prepared to give an answer to your question - yes or no?

.. . . . . . . .
ETA: I have heard other forum members give very detailed answers to this question, but I want to hear DOC's answer.

Also a follow up question. Is the type of slavery described in the Bible so mild that we should consider making it law in the United States?

MORE ETA: When you get a chance would you answer this question? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3387135#post3387135)

[zooterkin]

Does the Bible speak out against slavery?

No.

[DOC]

DOC, you gave this thread the title: Does God speak out against slavery in the Bible?

Are you prepared to give an answer to your question - yes or no?

.. . . . . . . .


Well actually I was responding to someone who brought the topic of slavery into another thread. This thread was spinned off by someone else, so it is not really my question, but in answer to the question.

Yes God does speak out against slavery indirectly

when Jesus says this in Luke 6 31

And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.

aka "The Golden Rule" Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. That infers Slavery is wrong according to God.

Also when Jesus says "Love your neighbor as yourself", and "love your enemies" this naturally infers slavery is wrong.

Maybe this is why Martin Luther King, who was a Christian pastor and a graduate of seminary school helped form the civil rights group the "Southern Christian Leadership Conference". He was also the first president of this civil rights organization. Obviously this mostly black civil rights organization had no problem with Christianity and slavery or they never would have voluntarily put the word Christian in the title of the well known civil rights organization.

[Ryan O'Dine]

The above passage says freeman and slaves are "equal" in Christ eyes.

So God couldn't care less if there's slavery.

1Corinthians 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether [we be] Jews or Gentiles, whether [we be] bond (slaves) or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

Just like slaves and freemen are equal before God's eyes, so are Jews (destined for hell) and Gentiles (destined for heaven).

"First, we must recognize that the Bible does not say God supports slavery.

So slavery was bad.

In ancient Israel, people who could not provide for themselves or their families sold them into slavery so they would not die of starvation or exposure. In this way, a person would receive food and housing in exchange for labor.

So slavery was good.

Anyone want to be my slave? I promise to treat you biblically.

[kmortis]

Well actually I was responding to someone who brought the topic of slavery into another thread. This thread was spinned off by someone else, so it is not really my question, but in answer to the question.

Yes God does speak out against slavery indirectly

when Jesus says this in Luke 6 31

And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.

aka "The Golden Rule" Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. That infers Slavery is wrong according to God.

Also when Jesus says "Love your neighbor as yourself", and "love your enemies" this naturally infers slavery is wrong.

Maybe this is why Martin Luther King, who was a Christian pastor and a graduate of seminary school helped form the civil rights group the "Southern Christian Leadership Conference". He was also the first president of this civil rights organization. Obviously this mostly black civil rights organization had no problem with Christianity and slavery or they never would have voluntarily put the word Christian in the title of the well known civil rights organization.

Yup, that nicely shows the Rorschach nature of the Bible.

Now, find a passage that says "Thou shall not take slaves". I bet you can't.

[Nogbad]

Yup, that nicely shows the Rorschach nature of the Bible.

Now, find a passage that says "Thou shall not take slaves". I bet you can't.

Does show it is adaptable tho...

Should I start a thread "Is charging interest scriptural"?

[Foster Zygote]

He who pampers his slave from childhood Will in the end find him to be a son. (Proverbs 29:21) New American Standard Bible


He that delicately bringeth up his servant from a child shall have him become [his] son at the length. (Proverbs 29:21) KJV

So you've gone from "the Bible doesn't condone slavery" to "the Bible says to be nice to your slaves".

Thread over.

[joobz]

So you've gone from "the Bible doesn't condone slavery" to "the Bible says to be nice to your slaves".

Thread over.
Foster Zygote winz Teh Intertubes! Please go to your nearest tubestore to collect your prize.

[Tricky]

So as long as they are all happy slaves, then it's okay with God.

Zip-a-dee-doo-dah.

[joobz]

Well He did say Love your neighbor as yourself, and Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Basically that's a way of saying slavery is wrong without getting killed immediately by the Roman authorities.
I noticed that you avoided the more difficult comment from earlier.
Allow me to repeat it:
I do not think you have fully thought through the implications of your argument. If it is true, than it is also likely that god may also want us to be vegetarian, permit women to be priests, allow gays to marry, permit 1st/2nd trimester abortions, say that jesus isn't the only way, that premaritial sex is ok... All of these things can be claimed to be things that "we cannot bear" just yet. And it doesn't matter if the bible outright denies these things, becuase it could simply be because society at the time couldn't accept such truths.

[scratchy]

Well He did say Love your neighbor as yourself, and Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Basically that's a way of saying slavery is wrong without getting killed immediately by the Roman authorities.
So Jesus blurred his views on slavery to save his own skin? With the effect that his followers needed 1800 years and the influence from secular philosophy to finally get it?

[dglas]

Looks like yet another Fail for the Bible as source of positive morality.

Don't you get it? The God of Abraham IS Satan, and has deceived all the Christians with his wickedness by claiming to be God.

(Wow! It feels strange to talk that way...)


Win Powerball!!

[XBoxWarrior]

Well, who the frock cares?

Slavery is WRONG......if I were a slave, I would die changing that issue.

that being said, the bible is a nice fictional piece, what did "Harry Potter" say
about the matter?

Idiot (DOC that is)

[ceo_esq]

So Jesus blurred his views on slavery to save his own skin? With the effect that his followers needed 1800 years and the influence from secular philosophy to finally get it?

Frankly, even on occasions when the message was delivered to his followers in no uncertain terms (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Paul03/p3subli.htm), it didn't really stop them from doing what they wanted to do anyway. Heck, many still don't seem to have gotten the Golden Rule in a whole host of contexts. In fairness, some - even many - of them "got it" regarding slavery much earlier than others. I'm not sure what you have in mind when you refer to "secular" philosophy (see, e.g., Jeremy Waldron's excellent God, Locke, and Equality: Christian Foundations in Locke's Political Thought (http://www.amazon.com/God-Locke-Equality-Christian-Foundations/dp/0521890578) (Cambridge UP 2002)).

[Gregoire]

So Jesus blurred his views on slavery to save his own skin? With the effect that his followers needed 1800 years and the influence from secular philosophy to finally get it?
Great Point.:)


We could say the same thing about the Divine right of Kings doctrine too. Recall how the character Jesus and his followers never disputed Roman rule.


As far as I can tell, the character Jesus was more interested in the "afterlife" than in changing the world we live in now. Slavery and Kings were just fine, so long as everyone followed him. The ultimate answer to all the world's suffering would only come when the world actually ends, democratic ideals notwithstanding.

It's no wonder medieval European kings liked Christianity.

[Gregoire]

Frankly, even on occasions when the message was delivered to his followers in no uncertain terms (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Paul03/p3subli.htm), it didn't really stop them from doing what they wanted to do anyway. Heck, many still don't seem to have gotten the Golden Rule in a whole host of contexts. In fairness, some - even many - of them "got it" regarding slavery much earlier than others. I'm not sure what you have in mind when you refer to "secular" philosophy (see, e.g., Jeremy Waldron's excellent God, Locke, and Equality: Christian Foundations in Locke's Political Thought (http://www.amazon.com/God-Locke-Equality-Christian-Foundations/dp/0521890578) (Cambridge UP 2002)).

The Papal encyclical you have cited is interesting. I did not know about it until you shared it with us. But it still dates back only to 1537.

Going back to what the original church believed and what the character Jesus is reported to have said, I still don't see any evidence that they wanted to change the structure of society. It seems their biggest concern was about heaven and hell.

[kmortis]

Well, who the frock cares?

Slavery is WRONG......if I were a slave, I would die changing that issue.

that being said, the bible is a nice fictional piece, what did "Harry Potter" say
about the matter?

Idiot (DOC that is)

HEY!!!! Don't call DOC an idiot. That's an insult to all of us legitimate idiots. He's a moron, at best. Or, as I prefer, jackass.

[Seismosaurus]

I don't see how "treat your slaves well" translates into "slavery is bad."

Surely "treat your slaves well" means "slavery is okay as long as you treat your slaves well."

[six7s]

Dear DOC,

Maybe you could answer a couple of questions re slavery, that were first posed to another 'Dr', back in 2004 or thereabouts (http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/drlaura.asp), and have yet to be addressed (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&suggon=0&safe=off&q=site%3Awww.drlaura.com+slavery&btnG=Search)


I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2021:7;&version=9;). In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?


Lev. 25:44 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lev.%2025:44&version=31) states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Samoans, but not Australians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Australians?

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

[jimbob]

Dear DOC,

Maybe you could answer a couple of questions re slavery, that were first posed to another 'Dr', back in 2004 or thereabouts (http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/drlaura.asp), and have yet to be addressed (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&suggon=0&safe=off&q=site%3Awww.drlaura.com+slavery&btnG=Search)


I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2021:7;&version=9;). In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?


Lev. 25:44 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lev.%2025:44&version=31) states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Samoans, but not Australians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Australians?

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Nominated for the sheer shooting fish in a barrel (near-pith).

Combined with the mountain of evidence from H3LL et al, a fine demolition, but you took it to its (il)logical conclusion...

[Tricky]

Nominated for the sheer shooting fish in a barrel (near-pith).

Combined with the mountain of evidence from H3LL et al, a fine demolition, but you took it to its (il)logical conclusion...
Sorry. It's copied. He even posted the link. Read the original if you haven't though. It's hilarious.

[CapelDodger]

Well He did say Love your neighbor as yourself, and Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Basically that's a way of saying slavery is wrong without getting killed immediately by the Roman authorities.

Actually, Jesus would have been brought before the Jewish authorities as a dangerous radical. Jews owned slaves. Parthians owned slaves. Gauls, Germans, Chinese, Indians, every society had a slave class. It would have been an unquestioned fact of life to the early Christians, and to Jesus.

"Do unto others" can as easily be read as "treat your betters with respect, just as you would have your inferiors treat you".

As Gregoire mentioned, Christianity was not a revolutionary movement. The "Give unto Caesar" passage makes that very clear. (Which goes to show that the gospel-writers could be clear when they wanted to be.)

[Hokulele]

Why can't I own Australians?


Meh, they just aren't worth that much on the open market. You are much better off owning Swedes.

[Foster Zygote]

Actually, Jesus would have been brought before the Jewish authorities as a dangerous radical. Jews owned slaves. Parthians owned slaves. Gauls, Germans, Chinese, Indians, every society had a slave class. It would have been an unquestioned fact of life to the early Christians, and to Jesus.

"Do unto others" can as easily be read as "treat your betters with respect, just as you would have your inferiors treat you".

As Gregoire mentioned, Christianity was not a revolutionary movement. The "Give unto Caesar" passage makes that very clear. (Which goes to show that the gospel-writers could be clear when they wanted to be.)

Someone here has a quote of Carl Sagan regarding the Library of Alexandria as a sig line: "The permanence of the stars was questioned, the justice of slavery was not."

[Safe-Keeper]

Some metathinking: The Bible was written by people who thought slavery was considered perfectly fine. Given this, it seems very strange that it'd oppose slavery. It's as if I, an opponent of slavery, should write a book in its defense.

[fuelair]

Some metathinking: The Bible was written by people who thought slavery was considered perfectly fine. Given this, it seems very strange that it'd oppose slavery. It's as if I, an opponent of slavery, should write a book in its defense.

Like Docky, whatever sells the product.

[Mobyseven]

So as long as they are all happy slaves, then it's okay with God.

Zip-a-dee-doo-dah.

That's what I was thinking. If you're going to say that the bible forbids slavery, it would be best not to cite a series of passages that talk about how one should treat their slaves...

[bruto]

Exodus 21:16 "He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death." Meaningful only if you equate kidnapping with enslavement. Why would you do that in a society where slavery was common and accepted?

Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond (slave) nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

The above passage says freeman and slaves are "equal" in Christ eyes.So we're equal in God's eyes. This says nothing about slavery in the real world, nor does it in any way oppose the idea that slaves remain slaves.

1Corinthians 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether [we be] Jews or Gentiles, whether [we be] bond (slaves) or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

Once again slaves are considered equal to freeman before God's eyes. And once again, not on earth, where the social order is preserved.

1 Corinthians 7:22 For he that is called in the Lord, a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is called, [being] free, is Christ's servant.


Slaves are freeman in God's eyes.But not one iota of objection to the way the world works, where slaves are still slaves.

Also this site does a good job covering the subject of slavery during Biblical times:

"First, we must recognize that the Bible does not say God supports slavery. In fact, the slavery described in the Old Testament was quite different from the kind of slavery we think of today - in which people are captured and sold as slaves. According to Old Testament law, anyone caught selling another person into slavery was to be executed:

"He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death." (Exodus 21:16)

So, obviously, slavery during Old Testament times was not what we commonly recognize as slavery, such as that practiced in the 17th century Americas, when Africans were captured and forcibly brought to work on plantations. [b]Unlike our modern government welfare programs, there was no safety-net for ancient Middle Easterners who could not provide a living for themselves. In ancient Israel, people who could not provide for themselves or their families sold them into slavery so they would not die of starvation or exposure. In this way, a person would receive food and housing in exchange for labor.

From the site: Does God approve Slavery According to the Bible?

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/slavery_bible.htmlMind you, I think attempting to use the Bible to support slavery or to justify it is wrong, but it's just as wrong to pretend that the Bible opposes it in practice. The promise that you'll be free in heaven is, if anything, an affirmation of it, and an acknowledgement that it is out of the church's temporal jurisdiction.

[CapelDodger]

Like Docky, whatever sells the product.

The old IBM ideology where the salesman is at the peak of the status pyramid. And why not, in this context?

Christianity didn't take off in the Semitic world, it took off in the Graeco-Roman world. (In the Semitic world Islam just stepped on an empty egg-shell.) That's where there was a market for this kind of stuff. It didn't question the social order, which was stable, but it did address some other need. The intriguing questions are what was the need?, and why?

Christianity tells us nothing about the real world, but it's an indirect witness to the society it took root in. And there was plenty of competition.

[Silentknight]

So, although there are rules about slavery in the Bible, those rules exist to protect the slave. Injuring or killing slaves was punishable - up to death of the offending party.1 Hebrews were commanded not to make their slave work on the Sabbath,2 slander a slave,3 have sex with another man's slave,4 or return an escaped slave.5 A Hebrew was not to enslave his fellow countryman, even if he owed him money, but was to have him work as a hired worker, and he was to be released in the year of jubilee (which occurred every seven years).6 In fact, the slave owner was encouraged to "pamper his slave".7
What the New Testament says about slavery

Since many of the early Christians were slaves to Romans,8 they were encouraged to become free if possible, but not worry about it if not possible.9

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/slavery_bible.html

Hey DOC, according to Exodus 21:20-21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exodus%2021:20-21&version=31), it's okay with God if you slowly beat your slaves to death. They just have to survive the beating for at least two days. After all, they are your money.

[six7s]

Nominated for the sheer shooting fish in a barrel (near-pith)

Thanguverrymuch jimbob

Although - as the Blue Genghis noted - it was (largely) copied, I would sincerely like to see an 'authoritative' response :)

Meh, they just aren't worth that much on the open market

Aussies are durable, easy to maintain and, as you say, cheap... a perfect time to buy!

You are much better off owning Swedes.

We're looking for muscle...

Even older joke:
Last week, a man driving around the back-blocks parked up by a shearing shed, strode up to the farmer and said "For you, I have an offer. I will be calculating the how many of sheep you are having and, if I am correct, I will be getting a sheep with me for to take. If I am being wrong, you will be getting my Volvo"

The farmer, thinking he's on to a winner, agrees

The driver pulls out a laptop, connects a USB modem, surfs to nordnav.com, logs into a GPS satellite navigation system to get an exact fix on the location, feeds that data into a three geo-stationary satellites that scan the farm and produce a 720dpi tif, which is downloaded to a server in Stockholm that emails him the output from a MY-SQL/PHP driven dB query that downloads to an OOo-Calc file that processes 42 formulae into a text file that is loaded into his Blackberry, from which he prints a full-color, 98-page report, which he presents to the bewildered farmer, who takes around ten minutes to decipher that there are 2,185 sheep, of which 87.42% are in-lamb

"Bugger me" says the astounded farmer, "you're right! Fair dues... take your pick from the flock"

The driver deliberates for a minute or so, makes his selection and returns to his Volvo

But, just before he starts the engine, the farmer calls out "Hang on a minute, mate! I've got a deal for you. If I can guess what you do for a living, I get your car. If I'm wrong, you get my entire flock, and the wool on their backs"

"OK" says the driver

"You're a consultant" says the farmer, immediately

"How did you guess?"

"I didn't need to guess; despite knowing nothing about me or my industry, you came here wanting to be paid for telling me something I already knew, in a format that I didn't understand"

"Now give me back my dog."

...not consultants

[joobz]

Hey DOC, according to Exodus 21:20-21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exodus%2021:20-21&version=31), it's okay with God if you slowly beat your slaves to death. They just have to survive the beating for at least two days. After all, they are your money.
Well, it fits with the god's old testament attitude as a abusive husband.
"why do you make me hurt you?"

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by six7s
Why can't I own Australians?

Meh, they just aren't worth that much on the open market. You are much better off owning Swedes.
Aussies are durable, easy to maintain and, as you say, cheap... a perfect time to buy!


I suppose both would cost in alcohol.

On the marketing sidethread:

IRRC there is a legend* that the leader of the Rus decided that he wanted to follow a "modern" religion instead of polytheism and invited representatives of Catholics, Greek orthodoox, and Islam to Moscow.

Abstention from alcohol did for Islam. Celibate priests did for Catholicism, leaving Orthodox Christianity as the only runner.


*i.e. probably not true...

[Darat]

...snip... A friend of mine claims that this applies to Samoans, but not Australians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Australians?


...snip...

Too difficult to house train.

[jimbob]

Darat,

does "difficult" mean that it is theoretically possible?

(Disclosure: I have dual Kiwi/British nationality, so am particularly bitter, especially during cricket test matches when I can feel some vague hope about once every 20 years...).

[Mobyseven]

Too difficult to house train.

Well if that's how you're going to be we'll just take our exports and go home.

What're you going to do without an influx of drunk blonde sheilas come uni break, eh?

[Darat]

Darat,

does "difficult" mean that it is theoretically possible?

(Disclosure: I have dual Kiwi/British nationality, so am particularly bitter, especially during cricket test matches when I can feel some vague hope about once every 20 years...).

Back in the 50s (and until the 80s) we ran some large scale research projects into this matter and the results were not very successful. (As anyone these days visiting the area we ran the experiments in i.e. Earls Court can see for themselves.) So whilst it theoretically may be possible and there may be one or two that could be house trained the usual recommendation is that they do not make good slaves.

[Darat]

Well if that's how you're going to be we'll just take our exports and go home.

What're you going to do without an influx of drunk blonde sheilas come uni break, eh?


Ah yes - Australian beauties. (http://www.dame-edna.com/)...

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by Mobyseven
Well if that's how you're going to be we'll just take our exports and go home.Ah yes - Australian beauties. (http://www.dame-edna.com/)...

It explains their wish for beer-glasses.

Mobyseven, isn't Sir Les Patterson the ideal cultural attaché?

[Nogbad]

It explains their wish for beer-glasses.

Mobyseven, isn't Sir Les Patterson the ideal cultural attaché?


Ladies and Gentlemen

I'm not going to insult your intelligence by pretending I haven't had a drink...because I have had a few...

but I'm not full and I'm not going to bore you either :D

[Mobyseven]

Ah yes - Australian beauties. (http://www.dame-edna.com/)...

Clearly you hung around in the wrong circles when you came to Australia. This is a more accurate representative of Australian females. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Hawkins)

[Tricky]

Clearly you hung around in the wrong circles when you came to Australia. This is a more accurate representative of Australian females. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Hawkins)
I can't think of Sheilas without remembering the famous Australian Women's Soccer Calendar of 1999.

http://www.womensoccer.com/refs/austrcalendar.html

[zooterkin]

What're you going to do without an influx of drunk blonde sheilas come uni break, eh?

Is it too late to claim my quota, as I seem to have missed it at the time?

[joobz]

Clearly you hung around in the wrong circles when you came to Australia. This is a more accurate representative of Australian females. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Hawkins)
There's definitely something freudian going on, becuase when I first read the title over her image "Beauty pageant titleholder", I read "Beauty pregnant T****holder".

I'm very sorry.:o

[CapelDodger]

On the marketing sidethread:

IRRC there is a legend* that the leader of the Rus decided that he wanted to follow a "modern" religion instead of polytheism and invited representatives of Catholics, Greek orthodoox, and Islam to Moscow.

Abstention from alcohol did for Islam. Celibate priests did for Catholicism, leaving Orthodox Christianity as the only runner.


*i.e. probably not true...

That's a new take on an old story, and one I hadn't heard before.

The old story refers to the Khan of the Khazars, who ran the whole Lower Don/Crimea/Ukraine region - a substantial power, sitting above the powers of Byzantium and Islam. The three delegations invited (so the story goes, and it's highly controversial) were Christian, Muslim, and Jewish. The Khan chose Judaism and his people (he was a very popular Khan, so the story goes) converted forthwith.

On the one hand, they kept sex and booze and gave up pork - which has never been big with nomadic types anyway. And on the same hand they didn't piss-off either the Byzantine or Islamic powers by siding with the other.

An astute move, to my mind. They got f***ed over by the Slavs in the end, but not for a good while.

[CapelDodger]

(Disclosure: I have dual Kiwi/British nationality, so am particularly bitter, especially during cricket test matches when I can feel some vague hope about once every 20 years...).

Dig up a great-grandparent called "Jones" or somesuch and you can claim dual Kiwi/Welsh nationality, to share in a once-in-twenty-years triumph. Wales beat England at Twickenham. I woke up thinking it was a dream, but the newspapers confirmed it.

Our new (Kiwi) coach can bask in a whole week of Messiahdom before the Scots crap all over us. What the hey. In the words of the song, "As long as we beat the English, we don't care".

And we did. One day we'll beat the god-like All Blacks. Aussies? Meh. Been there, done that.

[CapelDodger]

There's definitely something freudian going on, becuase when I first read the title over her image "Beauty pageant titleholder", I read "Beauty pregnant T****holder".

I'm very sorry.:o

My first reaction was along the lines of "Giggeda giggeda giggeda Oh yeah". If that makes me a sorry example of manhood, so be it, but I don't need no frickin' Freud to explain it to me.

[CapelDodger]

Is it too late to claim my quota, as I seem to have missed it at the time?

In my experience there wasn't much to claim, since they were coming over to see their "boyfriends" (fat chance that said boyfriends would be spending good beer-money travelling the other way). It was mostly a difficult time for all concerned - but rather amusing to watch.

[Foster Zygote]

Well, it fits with the god's old testament attitude as a abusive husband.
"why do you make me hurt you?"

I liked your "God as Nelson Muntz: Stop hitting yourself" even better.

[CapelDodger]

Well, it fits with the god's old testament attitude as a abusive husband.
"why do you make me hurt you?"

That's cold. Don't ever change :).

[CapelDodger]

I liked your "God as Nelson Muntz: Stop hitting yourself" even better.

The "abusive husband" evokes a much more visceral response. They're common enough that they impact on almost everybody - through family, friends, colleagues. The playground bully is left behind, the adult bully is always with us.

[-Fran-]

Meh, they just aren't worth that much on the open market. You are much better off owning Swedes.

Hey :(

Though I guess I'm glad to hear we are considered more worth than the Australians :)

ETA:
Haven't we already discussed this very thing with DOC in another thread? It all sounds very familiar, but I can't find it...

[Hokulele]

Hey :(

Though I guess I'm glad to hear we are considered more worth than the Australians :)


New game! List the nationalities worth more as slaves than Australians and why.

Japanese - They already have a strong work ethic.

ETA:
Haven't we already discussed this very thing with DOC in another thread? It all sounds very familiar, but I can't find it...


Pretty much anything in a DOC thread is recycled (how environmentally friendly!). Every now and then he gloms onto some new fetish, and we get treated to that ad nauseum (re: Peter Singer).

[-Fran-]

New game! List the nationalities worth more as slaves than Australians and why.

Japanese - They already have a strong work ethic.

Norwegians - They eat Lutefisk, so that means they can survive on anything (low food costs) :p


Pretty much anything in a DOC thread is recycled (how environmentally friendly!). Every now and then he gloms onto some new fetish, and we get treated to that ad nauseum (re: Peter Singer).

True.

I wonder what really motivates DOC to post so much here :confused: I mean, it isn't hard to see that what he really wants with all that he is saying is to convert the atheist, or at least make the atheist admit he/she is evil and damned. But he must have realized by now that it is quite a hopeless mission he is on. Or does it get more noble the more impossible it is? :confused: I realize that I am not fully clear about how such a faith-based mindset works. To me, when things clearly does not work, it seems natural to try something else, but he just chugs on, on the same track, as if nothing has happened. :boggled:

[joobz]

So, to sum up the current status of this thread.

The god of the bible is ok with slavery and never condemned it. He even went so far in saying what's a good way to have slaves.


What else in the bible will we see as a goofy anachronism years from now? My money's on homosexuality.

[bruto]

What else in the bible will we see as a goofy anachronism years from now? God?

[CapelDodger]

I wonder what really motivates DOC to post so much here :confused: I mean, it isn't hard to see that what he really wants with all that he is saying is to convert the atheist, or at least make the atheist admit he/she is evil and damned. But he must have realized by now that it is quite a hopeless mission he is on. Or does it get more noble the more impossible it is? :confused: I realize that I am not fully clear about how such a faith-based mindset works. To me, when things clearly does not work, it seems natural to try something else, but he just chugs on, on the same track, as if nothing has happened. :boggled:

Pop-psyche mode :

Someone like DOC validates themselves when they post here. We may regard them as emerging from a swamp of superstition, ignorance and narcissim but they regard themselves as descending into our midst. When we laugh them off they feel even more validated. Despite our cleverness we can't see what is so obvious to them, even when they "explain" it.

[CapelDodger]

What else in the bible will we see as a goofy anachronism years from now?

The Chapter and Verse structure. No hyperlinks to Christian theological exegesis :confused: ? Is that Dark Ages or what?

[joobz]

The Chapter and Verse structure. No hyperlinks to Christian theological exegesis :confused: ? Is that Dark Ages or what?
There's been countless movie and CD tie-ins, so there are some things that are progressive.

[ceo_esq]

Surely "treat your slaves well" means "slavery is okay as long as you treat your slaves well."

Surely not. For example, nineteenth-century exhortations to slaveholders to treat their slaves well tended to be authored by people who were abolitionists. (Not to compare the early modern institution to the Old Testament one to which the same name is often assigned.)


The Papal encyclical you have cited is interesting. I did not know about it until you shared it with us. But it still dates back only to 1537.

That's not too surprising, since that's shortly after the European powers instituted New World slavery. Prior to that, slavery had virtually disappeared from Europe (partly for economic and cultural reasons beginning shortly after the fall of Rome; partly due to anti-slavery policies and campaigns of European monarchs, bishops and saints carried out between roughly the 7th and the 11th centuries). By the time the high Middle Ages rolled around, Europeans tended to regard slavery as essentially a thing of the past or of barbaric foreign lands.


Anyhow, I located a piece by British historian John Coffey (http://www.le.ac.uk/hi/people/jrdc1.html) that contains an interesting section on how early modern abolitionists viewed the issue of biblical slavery:

Whilst abolitionist ideas of brotherhood, liberty, benevolence and judgement were rooted in Scripture, the Bible also presented them with a problem, since both OT Israel and the NT church seemed to accept (or at least tolerate) the institution of slavery. As the former slave Cugoano (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quobna_Ottobah_Cugoano) admitted, the claim that the Old Testament sanctioned slavery was "the greatest bulwark of defence which the advocates and favourers of slavery can advance". Cugoano thought that this was "an inconsistent and diabolical use of the sacred writings". How ironic it was to see slave-traders ransacking the Pentateuch to legitimate slavery while blithely ignoring texts which made slave trading a capital crime: "He that stealeth a man and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death" (Exodus 21:16; also Deuteronomy 24:7).

Abolitionists usually admitted that the Law of Moses did sanction a form of slavery, and that this was legitimate in its time and place. But they distinguished between the perpetual enslavement of Gentiles, and the highly qualified servitude of fellow Jews. The enslavement of other Jews was to be dissolved at the year of Jubilee, and abolitionists often argued that it was "not, properly speaking, slavery" – which by definition involved permanent rights of ownership. The enslavement of the Gentiles, they maintained, was a unique punishment for exceptional wickedness, and formed no precedent for other nations. In any case, even these slaves were guaranteed better treatment than modern Africans. The Israelites, as one writer noted, were "exhorted to remember their own bondage in the land of Israel, and to treat their servants with the same lenity they wished to experience themselves" (see Deuteronomy 15:12–15; 24:14–22). OT law regulated slavery in a manner that was unique in the ancient world.

Abolitionists also maintained that "the laws of brotherly love are infinitely enlarged" by the Gospel, which proclaims "goodwill towards men without distinction". Since all men were now to be treated as brethren, the Mosaic ban on perpetual enslavement of fellow Israelites was universalised. Of course, pro-slavery Christians emphasised that neither Christ nor the apostles demanded the abolition of slavery. But abolitionists responded that slavery was tolerated as an evil by the early church, just like "the sanguinary despotism of Nero" and "the sports of gladiators", neither of which was expressly condemned in the New Testament. Despotism and slavery were contrary to the "spirit" of Christianity, whose "merciful operations", though "gradual and slow", eventually undermined both institutions. Abolition could not happen in the first centuries, when the church was too weak and slavery was integral to the Roman economy. As Equiano (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olaudah_Equiano) observed, if Paul [of Tarsus] "had absolutely declared the iniquity of slavery … he would have occasioned more tumult than reformation". Yet his letter to Philemon (http://ebible.org/web/Philemon.htm) plainly showed "that he thought it derogatory to the honour of Christianity, that men who are bought with the inestimable price of Christ's blood, shall be esteemed slaves, and the private property of their fellow-men". Paul had pointed the way; it was for later Christians to complete the journey.

(footnotes omitted; full article available here (http://www.jubilee-centre.org/online_documents/TheabolitionoftheslavetradeChristianconscienceandp oliticalaction.htm))

[CapelDodger]

There's been countless movie and CD tie-ins, so there are some things that are progressive.

The Sistene Chapel's an impressive tie-in, but is it interactive? Not so much.

Demand will bring us the interactive Bible, which is doable, but the next demand will be an interactive god. A much trickier proposition.

[Graybeard6]

Back in the 1970s, KMart decided to test Alabama's prohibition of Sunday opening of stores. The sheriff sent his minions to the Huntsville store to arrest the manager. He wasn't there. They decided tht the people at the registers were in charge, so they started to arrest them; when they did, someone else went to the register and got arrested. By the time they were down to a shelf stocker, they allowed the doors to be locked and the lights turned out. In court the next morning the KMart attorney pointed out to the judge that the Alabama Constitution had a clause that stated that if a master required his slave to work on the Sabbath, no harm shall come to the slave.
Since the quickest way to get stupid laws changed in the deep south is to point out that "the DamYankees are laughing at us as dumb rednecks", the law was changed . We happily went out and shopped on Sunday, never realizing that we owed that freedom to the Bible!

[SezMe]

I wonder what really motivates DOC to post so much here :confused:
I asked him that very question (in the Singer thread, I think). He ignored me.

[-Fran-]

I asked him that very question (in the Singer thread, I think). He ignored me.

We'll never know, I guess, when it comes to DOC.

But I often wonder the same thing about several very stubborn and extreme kind of woo who never give up posting here, no matter that their claims are debunked and shown to be flawed again, and again, and again and... I mean for us the whole thing often has some entertainment value if nothing else :) but one has to wonder what is in it for them :confused:

[-Fran-]

Pop-psyche mode :

Someone like DOC validates themselves when they post here. We may regard them as emerging from a swamp of superstition, ignorance and narcissim but they regard themselves as descending into our midst. When we laugh them off they feel even more validated. Despite our cleverness we can't see what is so obvious to them, even when they "explain" it.

Yes, I guess there must be something in it for them, or they would just be plain masochistic :confused:

[bokonon]

Well, since Disciple of Christ has conceded in the Singer thread that he refrains from bestiality in part out of fear that bestiality might be addictive, and since he obviously considers atheists to be beastly...

[zooterkin]

Well, since Disciple of Christ has conceded in the Singer thread that he refrains from bestiality in part out of fear that bestiality might be addictive, and since he obviously considers atheists to be beastly...

What's the "Singer thread"?

[DOC]

What's the "Singer thread"?

It's the thread in the Religion Section with the title:

"The Troubling beliefs of an Influential atheist"

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=105421

[SezMe]

Hey, DOC, good to see you following this thread. Care to answer my question: Why do you hang out here? Does CapelDodger's pop-psych hypothesis have any merit?

[DOC]

Well, since Disciple of Christ has conceded in the Singer thread that he refrains from bestiality in part out of fear that bestiality might be addictive, and since he obviously considers atheists to be beastly...

This quote is deceptive and false in at least 6 ways.

1 0ne it doesn't give the name of the person your talking -- some people will know who you talking about; some won't

2 the word conceded is falsely used

3 the word refrains is misleading

4 the word fear is falsely used

5 the individual stated that conceivably it could be addictive to the animal, yet your implication is that he was concerned about his own addiction.

6 and the last line is a false assumption

[DOC]

Hey, DOC, good to see you following this thread. Care to answer my question: Why do you hang out here? Does CapelDodger's pop-psych hypothesis have any merit?

I haven't read many of the posts for time reasons and just went to the last few.

[SezMe]

That's understandable. I too often can't keep up with the posting pace here. That said, since I repeated my question in the very post you responded to, why didn't you answer the question?

[joobz]

This quote is deceptive and false in at least 6 ways. Hi DOC, that's the second time in the past 12 hours that I've seen you adopt my posting style. Thank you for the compliment. It's a solid indication that you while you may not respond, you do read my posts.


1 0ne it doesn't give the name of the person your talking -- some people will know who you talking about; some won't This is neither deceptive or false. It's simply ambiguous.

2 the word conceded is falsely used
I'll give you this one. Conceded implies that you previously were claiming to only have religious reasons for not having sex with animals. There was no reason to make that assumption.

3 the word refrains is misleadingNot at all. To refrain from doing something means you don't do it.


4 the word fear is falsely usedno, it's usage is correct.


5 the individual stated that conceivably it could be addictive to the animal, yet your implication is that he was concerned about his own addiction. "the individual"(you mean you), did mean that. As such, you are completely correct.


6 and the last line is a false assumption
true, you never claimed atheists were beastly. Simply amoral indviduals who would create a society filled with horrors. But you never did say atheists were beastly.

[bokonon]

What's the "Singer thread"?
Sorry, I had in mind this post:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3400318#post3400318

I'll just say my inner voice tells me its wrong and also not in my best interest. Also it could conceivably cause an obsession or addiction in the animal.

[bokonon]

5 the individual stated that conceivably it could be addictive to the animal, yet your implication is that he was concerned about his own addiction.
Wow, you know, that's how I read it at first, then I figured it must just be an unfortunate ambiguity unintentionally introduced by your obvious struggles with the English language.

So, sort of a King Kong/Fay Wray kind of thing, huh?

Disciple of Christ, I apologize for that one, the "deception" was unintentional.

I don't think any of your other 5 points are valid.

[-Fran-]

Disciple of Christ, I apologize for that one, the "deception" was unintentional.


That's what DOC stands for? Never occurred to me before :)

[bokonon]

That's what DOC stands for? Never occurred to me before :)
I wasn't the first one to figure it out, but I don't know who gets the credit.

[six7s]

Not Deluded Obfuscating Creationist, then?

[joobz]

I wasn't the first one to figure it out, but I don't know who gets the credit.
I claim credit for it. At least until someone comes along with proof that it wasn't me.:D

[Hokulele]

I claim credit for it. At least until someone comes along with proof that it wasn't me.:D


Bzzt! Your claim, your burden of proof. :p

[joobz]

Bzzt! Your claim, your burden of proof. :p
Why are you attacking the messanger. I'm simply providing information. What you do with it is your own business.;)

[joobz]

doublepost

[-Fran-]

Not Deluded Obfuscating Creationist, then?

I thought it was Dude's Obviously Crazy, but... :)

[Nogbad]

That's what DOC stands for? Never occurred to me before :)

:boggled: I thought it meant he was an MD.

[kmortis]

:boggled: I thought it meant he was an MD.

* kmortis GUZZLES the brain bleach

Don't say things like that! There are some of us who cannot handle that kind of shock.

[SezMe]

I thought it meant he had a Ph.D. in stupidology.

[Fitter]

Bzzt! Your claim, your burden of proof. :p
Got your back (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3351395#post3351395), joobz.

[Hokulele]

Got your back (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3351395#post3351395), joobz.


Well I'll be a monkey's auntie. Joobz, you now have earned the title "Speaker to DOC".


Unlike Kmo, who is still official Insulter to DOC.

[Elizabeth I]

New game! List the nationalities worth more as slaves than Australians and why.

Japanese - They already have a strong work ethic.

Texans - we're meaner than almost anybody <<grrr!>>

[six7s]

No Way José!

KcMs-hWvGNM

Until they can play contact sport without protection and stopping for a 45-second breather every 90 seconds, I'll invest on Aussies, or - preferably - Samoans

Hmmm... that reminds me... still no 'authoritative' answer from Dead On Contact (or whatever his name is)

[joobz]

Well I'll be a monkey's auntie. Joobz, you now have earned the title "Speaker to DOC".


Unlike Kmo, who is still official Insulter to DOC.
We just need 10 more and we can start the DODOCs.

[Elizabeth I]

No Way José!

Until they can play contact sport without protection and stopping for a 45-second breather every 90 seconds, I'll invest on Aussies, or - preferably - Samoans

Hey, we have Rugby teams in Texas. And have you ever watched NBA basketball? I know it's not SUPPOSED to be a contact sport, but...

[joobz]

Perhaps DOC will eventaully explain why the bible is a valuable source of morals when it so clearly indicates that salvery is acceptable.


As it stands, Perhaps DOC is correct that you need a god to be "truly" moral, but it seems (as judged by the bible) that the christian god isn't the one to follow.

[Crossbow]

Actually, if God was so opposed to slavery, then I would have expected there to be an admonition about slavery in the Ten Commandments.

But alas, the Ten Commandments actually affirms the practice of slavery. Specifically:

Exodus 20:10
But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns.

And just a bit later in Exodus 20:17
You shall not covet your neighbour’s house; you shall not covet your neighbour’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour.

Proof positive of God's approval of slavery!

[Cleon]

So apparently the answer to the thread title is a very firm "no."

The only exceptions seem to be:

1. Wishful thinking
2. Creative re-interpretation
3. Assumption of facts not in evidence

Am I missing anything?

[jimbob]

Lying?

[ceo_esq]

So apparently the answer to the thread title is a very firm "no."

The only exceptions seem to be:

1. Wishful thinking
2. Creative re-interpretation
3. Assumption of facts not in evidence

Am I missing anything?

Reasonable inference. Arguably, even logical deduction.

[Cleon]

Lying?

I filed that under "creative re-interpretation."

[zooterkin]

Reasonable inference. Arguably, even logical deduction.

Go on then; show your working.

[Crossbow]

So apparently the answer to the thread title is a very firm "no."

The only exceptions seem to be:

1. Wishful thinking
2. Creative re-interpretation
3. Assumption of facts not in evidence

Am I missing anything?

Just one small thing and that is

God is such a bugger!

Ooops! I just had a Richard Dawkins moment. ;)

[ceo_esq]

Go on then; show your working.


Didn't Locke already do that in the Two Treatises?

Anyhow, though I don't acknowledge any spiritual premises from the Bible, even I can see how one can reason from those premises to arrive, without undue difficulty, at the notion that slavery contravenes them.

One might reasonably conclude that slavery, especially chattel slavery of the sort we knew in the New World, violates the Golden Rule. If I love my neighbor as myself, and wish to do to him as I would have him do to me, should I consign him to slavery?

One might reasonably conclude that the state of slavery, which fundamentally reduces human persons to instruments of gain, is a dishonor to the natural dignity of rational creatures created in God’s image, and to God himself who asserted that whatever we do to one another, we do to him.

One might reasonably conclude that if “your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit which is in you, which you have of God, and you are not your own” having been “bought, and at a price” (i.e. Jesus' sacrifice), then our ownership of and commerce in other human bodies is a fortiori an affront and injustice to God.

One might reasonably conclude that slavery entails a denial of certain virtues praised in the Bible (e.g. justice, charity, mercy, fraternity, humility) and an indulgence of corresponding vices that are condemned there.

One might reasonably conclude that accepting the Bible’s assertion of the spiritual and a priori equality of members of the human race, who are “of one blood”, deprives us of a just basis for arguing that some of us are meant to be owned by others.

Noting the frequency with which the image of freedom is invoked as a blessing (“the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free”; “the perfect law of liberty”; “the glorious liberty of the children of God”; etc.), one might reasonably conclude that – even assuming arguendo that the images are figurative – their very use acknowledges personal liberty as a great good (and the unmerited suppression of which must be a great wrong).

But why bother to reinvent the wheel here? Arguing the the immorality of slavery from scriptural bases has been a feature of Western anti-slavery writing from St. Cyprian through Locke through the 19th-century American abolitionists.

[quixotecoyote]

The question wasn't whether Christians could re-work the Bible to show slavery is wrong, examples of that are prevalent in this very thread. The question was whether the Bible actually spoke out against it or is it something that has to be coaxed, teased, and creatively interpreted based on the interplay of other scriptural texts and modern morals.

[-Fran-]

But why bother to reinvent the wheel here? Arguing the the immorality of slavery from scriptural bases has been a feature of Western anti-slavery writing from St. Cyprian through Locke through the 19th-century American abolitionists.

I'm sure this is true, and it's a good thing, obviously, that they did interpret things that way, since it gave them motivation to fight slavery. But the question was if the bible condones slavery, and I still think it does.

I am certainly no bible expert, but these questions comes up within me.


One might reasonably conclude that slavery, especially chattel slavery of the sort we knew in the New World, violates the Golden Rule. If I love my neighbor as myself, and wish to do to him as I would have him do to me, should I consign him to slavery?

It doesn't violate the golden rule if the golden rule does not apply to all. We assume that the golden rule does apply to all human beings. But does it in the context of the bible? And haven't people through history, including those who used the bible to defend slavery, actually not included certain groups of humans? I mean, the golden rule refers to humans not to chattel, and if you already accept that some humans can be considered chattel, then it's as easily reasonable to conclude that the golden rule does actually not inlcude absolutely everybody.


One might reasonably conclude that the state of slavery, which fundamentally reduces human persons to instruments of gain, is a dishonor to the natural dignity of rational creatures created in God’s image, and to God himself who asserted that whatever we do to one another, we do to him.

Again, who is to be included in the "another"? Another equal? Surely some have argued through history that some humans beings were actually not, they could have been created by the devil, and not by god, for example. There was a discussion about if Native Americans were really humans. If you really thought they were not, then they weren't created in god's image. Enslave at will!


One might reasonably conclude that slavery, especially chattel slavery of the sort we knew in the New World, violates the Golden Rule. If I love my neighbor as myself, and wish to do to him as I would have him do to me, should I consign him to slavery?

No, you shouldn't, but who was "the neighbour"? We see "the neighbour" as a symbol for all other humans, everybody is our brother or sister. Did they? Could the word in the bible be taken more literally? The neighbour is actually the guy next to you, who you are more or less related to, the same clan or tribe member. Someone of the same people as you. All others are actually not neighbours, and if they are stronger, beware of them, if they are weaker, enslave them! The bible does not speak against that, it seems.

Ah, well, you get my point. I'm not sure the bible meant all these things as nobly as you stated above, I think that many of these words and phrases were actually never meant to be "all inclusive". And I am quite sure that as many people as has interpreted the bible as you mentioned above, there are just as many (more?) who have come to the equally reasonable conclusion (in this context) that slavery is quite OK with god.

[ceo_esq]

The question wasn't whether Christians could re-work the Bible to show slavery is wrong, examples of that are prevalent in this very thread. The question was whether the Bible actually spoke out against it or is it something that has to be coaxed, teased, and creatively interpreted based on the interplay of other scriptural texts and modern morals.

Well, every text, by definition, has to be interpreted. But my intention above was to show examples that don't really involve (from my non-Christian perspective) particularly convoluted reasoning. Perhaps I failed to do that, although upon re-reading my examples I still think they don't resort to any coaxing, teasing, tricky logic, or what have you. Accepting the truth of the biblical premises might require some convoluted reasoning, of course! But I don't have to believe X is true in order to conclude that believing X is inconsistent with believing Y. I'm not saying that the reasoning in my examples is the only possible reasoning, by the way, just that the conclusions aren't unreasonable ones.

Such reasoning doesn't require the benefit of influence from "modern morals", either. Bear in mind that arguments along the lines of the ones I cited have been around since pretty early on in the history of Christianity. Indeed, they're indirectly part of the reason why our "modern" view of the immorality of slavery is what it is.

[zooterkin]

Well, every text, by definition, has to be interpreted. But my intention above was to show examples that don't really involve (from my non-Christian perspective) particularly convoluted reasoning.
Except for the bit where passages explicitly condoning slave ownership are ignored, perhaps.


Such reasoning doesn't require the benefit of influence from "modern morals", either. Bear in mind that arguments along the lines of the ones I cited have been around since pretty early on in the history of Christianity. Indeed, they're indirectly part of the reason why our "modern" view of the immorality of slavery is what it is.
That's one way to view it. Alternatively, people felt that slavery was wrong, and looked for support in what they believed to be the word of God. They had to be fairly creative to find it.

[joobz]

Well, every text, by definition, has to be interpreted. But my intention above was to show examples that don't really involve (from my non-Christian perspective) particularly convoluted reasoning. Perhaps I failed to do that, although upon re-reading my examples I still think they don't resort to any coaxing, teasing, tricky logic, or what have you. Accepting the truth of the biblical premises might require some convoluted reasoning, of course! But I don't have to believe X is true in order to conclude that believing X is inconsistent with believing Y. I'm not saying that the reasoning in my examples is the only possible reasoning, by the way, just that the conclusions aren't unreasonable ones.

Such reasoning doesn't require the benefit of influence from "modern morals", either. Bear in mind that arguments along the lines of the ones I cited have been around since pretty early on in the history of Christianity. Indeed, they're indirectly part of the reason why our "modern" view of the immorality of slavery is what it is.
by the series of arguments you made, any form of social inequality can be considered unchristian.

But this was the point I made with DOC, if you allow for that interpretation with slavery, why not with homosexuality?

[zooterkin]

It's the thread in the Religion Section with the title:

"The Troubling beliefs of an Influential atheist"

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=105421

Thanks. I've just had a read through. I must say I admire you for pointing to a thread which demolishes your OP so thoroughly.

[Cleon]

Didn't Locke already do that in the Two Treatises?

Anyhow, though I don't acknowledge any spiritual premises from the Bible, even I can see how one can reason from those premises to arrive, without undue difficulty, at the notion that slavery contravenes them.

So, one entry for "creative re-interpretation."

[ceo_esq]

It doesn't violate the golden rule if the golden rule does not apply to all. We assume that the golden rule does apply to all human beings. But does it in the context of the bible? And haven't people through history, including those who used the bible to defend slavery, actually not included certain groups of humans? I mean, the golden rule refers to humans not to chattel, and if you already accept that some humans can be considered chattel, then it's as easily reasonable to conclude that the golden rule does actually not inlcude absolutely everybody.

...

Again, who is to be included in the "another"? Another equal? Surely some have argued through history that some humans beings were actually not, they could have been created by the devil, and not by god, for example. There was a discussion about if Native Americans were really humans. If you really thought they were not, then they weren't created in god's image. Enslave at will!

I think the obvious implication – and thus probably the most persuasive interpretation – of the NT texts is that the Golden Rule applies to humanity generally (a point I'll return to later in this post). This is clearly not the only possible interpretation, of course. And your point here is a good one: a "pan-human" interpretation of the Golden Rule is not, by itself, sufficient to permit someone to conclude that enslaving, say, Native Americans is wrong: you also need the additional premise that Native Americans are human beings. If you believe someone is not human – whether through ignorance, prejudice, bad science or otherwise – it won’t matter what your holy book says about how to treat your fellow man. You may have the right rule, but you’ll be applying it to faulty data (garbage in, garbage out!). That wouldn’t seem to be the Bible’s fault, however.


No, you shouldn't, but who was "the neighbour"? We see "the neighbour" as a symbol for all other humans, everybody is our brother or sister. Did they? Could the word in the bible be taken more literally? The neighbour is actually the guy next to you, who you are more or less related to, the same clan or tribe member. Someone of the same people as you. All others are actually not neighbours, and if they are stronger, beware of them, if they are weaker, enslave them! The bible does not speak against that, it seems.

I think the foregoing interpretation is much less well supported by the texts. When someone asked Jesus your question – exactly who is my neighbor for purposes of the Golden Rule? – Jesus supposedly responded with the story of the the Good Samaritan (the parabolic Samaritan and the Jew he helped, of course, belonged to different religious and ethnic groups that regarded each other with hostility). When Jesus says “love your enemies, do good to those that hate you”, how likely is it that he meant only people within your clan or tribe? And when the Bible insists that all human beings are “of one blood”, and children of the same divine father – who, moreover, does not distinguish between Jew and Gentile, etc. – does that harmonize better with a narrowly-interpreted Golden Rule or a broadly-interpreted one? I could go on.


Ah, well, you get my point. I'm not sure the bible meant all these things as nobly as you stated above, I think that many of these words and phrases were actually never meant to be "all inclusive". And I am quite sure that as many people as has interpreted the bible as you mentioned above, there are just as many (more?) who have come to the equally reasonable conclusion (in this context) that slavery is quite OK with god.

I do get your point, Fran, which is well taken. Thanks for your thought-provoking post.

Interestingly, pro-slavery types who debated abolitionists in the United States often acknowledged that the Golden Rule applied to the treatment of blacks, but resorted to all kinds of mental contortions in an effort to show why it didn’t actually require anyone to renounce the institution of slavery. For example, it would be argued that, technically, the master can’t want the slave to free him, because he (the master) is already free. Therefore, the Golden Rule doesn’t require the master to free his slaves, because the master himself does not desire to be freed by his slaves. Talk about tortuous and counter-intuitive interpretations!


Except for the bit where passages explicitly condoning slave ownership are ignored, perhaps.

(Let’s leave aside for a moment the implications of the fact that the institutions of servitude that prevailed in biblical milieus were not the same institutions as New World-style chattel and racial slavery.)

Condonation generally connotes an implicit or deemed forgiveness, disregard, excusal or approval, so I’m not sure what kind of “explicit” condonation you have in mind. But I’m not aware of any biblical moral instruction explicitly approving slavery. Perhaps one exists. At any rate, my point was that one has to ignore at least as many (and in my view more) clear biblical texts, and deny the logical implications thereof, in mounting a scriptural defense of slavery than in mounting a scriptural attack on it.


That's one way to view it. Alternatively, people felt that slavery was wrong, and looked for support in what they believed to be the word of God.

Possibly. But it’s not too clear on what bases they believed it was wrong other than on their interpretations of what they believed to be the word of God - and since the extant evidence of early anti-slavery arguments suggests that the speakers often thought that was the basis, I think my explanation is less speculative than your proposed alternative.


They had to be fairly creative to find it.

As I’ve shown, it doesn’t take much creativity (unlike, for example, the astonishing pro-slavery argument to which I alluded earlier in this post, which purported to show why the Golden Rule imposes no moral obligation on a slaveholder to renounce slavery).

Really, though, creativity isn’t the issue. It takes no creativity to look at the Bible, see that slavery existed in it and that there is no express, dumbed-down general injunction against slavery as such, and infer that God is OK with you keeping your slaves. What it takes to maintain that position in light of the kind of arguments I referenced earlier is, I submit, one or more of the following: ignorance, denial, personal or cultural prejudice, an unwillingness or inability to make more than the most basic demands of one’s critic reasoning faculties, a high tolerance for cognitive dissonance, or a vested interest in not challenging the status quo. (In the modern era, one might add to that list a desire to condemn Christianity or the Bible generally.)


by the series of arguments you made, any form of social inequality can be considered unchristian.

While not the only possible scriptural interpretation, that’s not an unreasonable one, and indeed a not-inconsiderable number of Christian individuals and institutions espouse it.


But this was the point I made with DOC, if you allow for that interpretation with slavery, why not with homosexuality?

Plenty of reasonable people do take a similar interpretation with homosexuality. Implementations may vary, of course. Also, homosexuality – or homosexual activity, anyway – has its own specific treatment in parts of the Bible, so those have to be accounted for somehow and the interpretive exercise is not going to be identical for the one for slavery. Finally, see the factors (ignorance, etc.) I listed earlier in this post – those can apply to homosexuality just as they historically often applied to slavery in a Christian context.


So, one entry for "creative re-interpretation."

It’s not a matter of creativity, as I’ve pointed out. This is one entry for the “reasonable inference and/or logical deduction” category. (And why re-interpretation as opposed simply to interpretation?)

[Giggywig]

ceo_esq: One question, do you think it could be reasonably argued that the Bible supports slavery as well?

[Cleon]

It’s not a matter of creativity, as I’ve pointed out.

You can "point out" that the sky is purple, that don't make it so.

You're fishing for some justification in the Bible for an opposition to slavery. You managed to find one. Congratulations. Of course, up until 150 years ago or so, Christians didn't see much of a problem with the practice. Even when the tide began to turn, a number of churches (the Southern Baptists, for one) decided that scripture supported slavery.

Which is why it's "creative re-interpretation." With a little creativity, you can pretty much re-interpret the Bible to support any cause you want. Slavery, abortion, the death penalty, civil rights, war, socialism, capitalism, whatever--people on both sides of all of these issues have claimed the Bible as justification and inspiration.

That doesn't stop the fact that the Bible does not condemn slavery. If you want to infer a hostility to slavery based on your interpretation, hey, that's your prerogative, and I for one certainly don't blame you.

But a genuine, clear, unequivocal condemnation of slavery? Not there. At all.

[DOC]

Originally Posted by bokonon

Disciple of Christ, I apologize for that one, the "deception" was unintentional.


That's what DOC stands for? Never occurred to me before :)

Me neither, but God does work in mysterious ways.

[ceo_esq]

ceo_esq: One question, do you think it could be reasonably argued that the Bible supports slavery as well?

Short answer: Yes, but see below.

Longer answer: I think there's a rational basis for arguing that the Bible supports slavery; I just don't think such arguments are quite as strong as the opposing arguments. I'd have to qualify that opinion with a few caveats, though. First, by "supports", I mean "condones" more than "endorses". Second, by "slavery", I mean the institutions of human servitude that existed in the communities of the Bible's authors, and probably not New World-style chattel slavery and racial enslavement. Perhaps

But to reiterate, I think the position, while not irrational, is not as well supported overall as its contrary.

[-Fran-]

I think the foregoing interpretation is much less well supported by the texts. When someone asked Jesus your question – exactly who is my neighbor for purposes of the Golden Rule? – Jesus supposedly responded with the story of the the Good Samaritan (the parabolic Samaritan and the Jew he helped, of course, belonged to different religious and ethnic groups that regarded each other with hostility). When Jesus says “love your enemies, do good to those that hate you”, how likely is it that he meant only people within your clan or tribe? And when the Bible insists that all human beings are “of one blood”, and children of the same divine father – who, moreover, does not distinguish between Jew and Gentile, etc. – does that harmonize better with a narrowly-interpreted Golden Rule or a broadly-interpreted one? I could go on.

Good points! I see it, and it might very well have been so. All I am saying is, that the idea that all (a literal 'all') human beings really are to be considered as having the same value, is, as far as I know, a fairly new idea. Most, if not all examples of expressions of equality from older times that I have come across (I do not claim to have come across all, and there are sure exceptions) has only appeared that way to our modern eyes, but in reality always meant to exclude some parts of humanity.

Many older statements that talked of human value, or equality, or brotherhood, and so on, often excluded women and/or children, slaves, foreigners (barbarians) and so on. And in the time and context that the idea was expressed in, it was probably such a given thing that this or that group was not included that it hardly needed mentioning, people would know who was, and wasn't included.

So, yes, maybe Jesus really meant ALL human beings, but as soon as an older text talks of things like this --- I get suspicious, and wonder who was meant to be included, and who was not, and I am trying to be careful about applying modern thoughts about what defines equality and similar things onto their definitions of it. Jesus may very well have meant for you to love all your free enemies... he doesn't mention slaves?

I think that we do not really try to twist the words of the bible when we say that, yes, it most likely supports such things as slavery, not if we put it in the context of its times and how people thought about, and defined such questions then (which I am not an expert on by all means, there are people here that knows much more about that, I suspect). I still think that we put a certain modern flair on Jesus' words, and other bible texts if we conclude that it was meant to object to slavery (and so did people a few hundred years back, it was still "modern" thoughts compared to the bible). I do think it demands a bit more creativity (as someone put it) to do that, than just to acknowledge the times in which the books were written. And the question is still if the bible condones slavery, and not how later people interpret the texts.

I agree though that my "tribe example" wasn't the most well thought out argument in connection to the "neighbour" example that Jesus talked about, it had more relevance to OT slave law, that did mean your literal neighbour when it clairfied who you should and should not enslave. Screwed up a bit there :o

[joobz]

Plenty of reasonable people do take a similar interpretation with homosexuality. Implementations may vary, of course. Also, homosexuality – or homosexual activity, anyway – has its own specific treatment in parts of the Bible, so those have to be accounted for somehow and the interpretive exercise is not going to be identical for the one for slavery. Finally, see the factors (ignorance, etc.) I listed earlier in this post – those can apply to homosexuality just as they historically often applied to slavery in a Christian context.
And here is where I see a problem. You could also use the bible to condone "consentual" sex between a child and an adult. An even easier justification from the bible would be one to say that it is moral to kill the children of my enemy. In the end, it simply means that the bible can be used to prop up the moral conclusion someone has come to. As such, the bible's morality is simply a reflection of society's morals and not the source of them.

This, to me, is the primary complaint I have with DOC's initial position and why the slavery argument was originally made. He claims you must have god for morality. And for best results, it must be the christian god. However, I have seen no evidence to support such a position.

[ceo_esq]

You can "point out" that the sky is purple, that don't make it so.

Of course not. However, it should be fairly obvious, to anyone without a vested interest in denying it, that the examples I provided do not not require or depend on any particularly "creative" or tortuous reasoning, I think the point is demonstrated. I haven't simply made a naked assertion of it.


You're fishing for some justification in the Bible for an opposition to slavery. You managed to find one. Congratulations.

I managed to find half a dozen, and that was chiefly the result of applying about 15 minutes' worth of commonsensical thinking to an online Bible. Not much of a fishing trip, really. More like shooting fish in a barrel.


Of course, up until 150 years ago or so, Christians didn't see much of a problem with the practice.

That's simply not true, and this has a lot to do with why, by the Middle Ages, slavery had by and large been stamped out in Christian countries. For almost as long as the religion has existed, there have been Christians condemning slavery as inconsistent with biblical precepts. This did not stop when slavery made a comeback, in a particularly vicious form, shortly after the discovery of the New World.


Even when the tide began to turn, a number of churches (the Southern Baptists, for one) decided that scripture supported slavery.

Sure. No one said this wasn't possible or that it didn't happen. See my earlier post, however, on what is ordinarily required in order for intelligent people to endorse such arguments (e.g., prejudice, ignorance, conflicting interest, and the like).


Which is why it's "creative re-interpretation." With a little creativity, you can pretty much re-interpret the Bible to support any cause you want. Slavery, abortion, the death penalty, civil rights, war, socialism, capitalism, whatever--people on both sides of all of these issues have claimed the Bible as justification and inspiration.

That's rather a function of human nature and the nature of textual interpretation. People on both sides of most of those issues have also claimed the U.S. Constitution as justification for their position, too. That doesn't mean that one interpretation is not better supported or more reasonable than another.


That doesn't stop the fact that the Bible does not condemn slavery. If you want to infer a hostility to slavery based on your interpretation, hey, that's your prerogative, and I for one certainly don't blame you.

...

But a genuine, clear, unequivocal condemnation of slavery? Not there. At all.

Any position on a textual question - yours, mine, or anyone's - turns on interpretation.

More importantly, for all practical purposes, asserting any proposition X is the very real equivalent of asserting each other proposition that is necessarily true if X is true. If (hypothetically) my holy book tells me I have a moral obligation to move to Utah, it's highly problematic for me to argue that it doesn't disapprove of making Ohio my primary residence, because it's difficult to see how both courses can be adopted simultaneously - even if there's no explicit condemnation of staying in Ohio. Likewise, if my holy book lays down the Golden Rule, it's highly problematic to argue that the book is OK with my enslaving fellow human beings, because it's hard to see how it's possible to obey the one while doing the other. That's the argument - one among other biblically-based anti-slavery arguments - made by many Christians. The condemnation is implicit, but no less real and present for it.

[ceo_esq]

And here is where I see a problem. You could also use the bible to condone "consentual" sex between a child and an adult.

Depending on the circumstances, possibly. Whether it would be a reasonable use of the Bible is another question.


An even easier justification from the bible would be one to say that it is moral to kill the children of my enemy.

I think that would probably be harder, not easier. I expect it would be extremely difficult to extrapolate rationally a general moral principle from the Bible as a whole, that a human being can freely kill the children of his enemy. It would necessarily involve credibly demonstrating why killing my enemy's children is actually a way of fulfilling (1) Jesus' explicit command to love my enemy and do good to him and (2) Jesus' explicit instruction not to bring children to harm. And that, my friend, is kind of a tall order.


In the end, it simply means that the bible can be used to prop up the moral conclusion someone has come to. As such, the bible's morality is simply a reflection of society's morals and not the source of them.

Depending on how radically someone is willing to divorce their interpretive approach from what is reasonable, I suppose just about any complex text can be used to rationalize just about any moral conclusion. But your suggestion that the Bible has no inherent moral substance is just a bit too postmodern for me.

Also, just taking the issue of slavery as an example, if you're going to argue that the Bible is nothing more than a moral mirror that reflects whatever a person brings to it, then I think we need to come up with a plausible alternative hypothesis for why fairly significant changes in social attitudes toward slavery in the Western world historically tended to correlate in place and in time with the spread of Christianity.

[joobz]

Depending on the circumstances, possibly. Whether it would be a reasonable use of the Bible is another question.

I think that would probably be harder, not easier. I expect it would be extremely difficult to extrapolate rationally a general moral principle from the Bible as a whole, that a human being can freely kill the children of his enemy. It would necessarily involve credibly demonstrating why killing my enemy's children is actually a way of fulfilling (1) Jesus' explicit command to love my enemy and do good to him and (2) Jesus' explicit instruction not to bring children to harm. And that, my friend, is kind of a tall order.I'm afraid you are being highly selective of Jesus' Teachings.
Don't forget
34 “Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. 35 For I have come to ‘set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law’; 36 and ‘a man’s enemies will be those of his own household.’[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2010:30-40;&version=50;#fen-NKJV-23448a)] 37 He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. 38 And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. 39 He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it.

Coupled with Mathew 11:20
20 Then He began to rebuke the cities in which most of His mighty works had been done, because they did not repent: 21 “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22 But I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you. 23 And you, Capernaum, who are exalted to heaven, will be[b (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2011:15-25;&version=50;#fen-NKJV-23477b)] brought down to Hades; for if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. 24 But I say to you that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for you.”

plus the countless texts of child killing in the OT. Sure, the golden rule applies, but the bible gives you exceptions to the rule.



Depending on how radically someone is willing to divorce their interpretive approach from what is reasonable, I suppose just about any complex text can be used to rationalize just about any moral conclusion. But your suggestion that the Bible has no inherent moral substance is just a bit too postmodern for me.I apologize if I made it sound such, that wasn't my intent. I do not claim that the bible is devoid of moral teachings. but it is clear that some selection must be done to get at the heart of the matter. Interestingly, I would even say that some of Jesus' teachings agree with this. Jesus' rejection of the sabbath was an indiction of such teachings.

But it is no where near clear that the bible/Jesus opposed slavery.

Also, just taking the issue of slavery as an example, if you're going to argue that the Bible is nothing more than a moral mirror that reflects whatever a person brings to it, then I think we need to come up with a plausible alternative hypothesis for why fairly significant changes in social attitudes toward slavery in the Western world historically tended to correlate in place and in time with the spread of Christianity.
slave vs. surf. Opens property of a merchant the other the king, who has power by god. I'm sorry, but the spread of christianity simply patterned a change in the kind of slavery not the concept.


I feel like I should make it clear. I do not think Jesus and the bible are useless and I respect the good that can be gained from it. But they are not unique in thier ability to teach morals.

[bruto]

I thought the question was "does the Bible speak out against slavery?" I don't see any evidence that that is the case, even if, as Ceo Esq. points out, it collaterally provides us with moral grounds for doing so, or can be interpreted as compatible with doing so.

[ceo_esq]

I'm afraid you are being highly selective of Jesus' Teachings.
Don't forget


Coupled with Mathew 11:20


plus the countless texts of child killing in the OT. Sure, the golden rule applies, but the bible gives you exceptions to the rule.

The Bible doesn't really seem to present those as exceptions to the Golden Rule. Interpretations of Mt 10:34-39 and Mt 11:20 as an exhortation to Christians to violent conduct are generally implausible. Child-killing episodes in the OT may set a bad contrary example, but unless you can point to one of them that incorporates an express rule of conduct for human beings to the effect that we should generally take the initiative to kill our enemies' children (which presumably, in light of the NT, would no longer be in effect anyway under the theological equivalent of the doctrine of implied repeal), then you're still left with an uphill climb. Those passages might suggest hypocrisy on God's part, of course, but I think a far easier project to argue around the child-killing passages than it is to argue around the anti-child-killing passages, which are far more direct and unambiguous. Moreover, the anti-child-killing ones tend to be phrased in the imperative.


But it is no where near clear that the bible/Jesus opposed slavery.

Again, if you can think of a way it would be possible to reconcile the Golden Rule (and the other biblical concepts I mentioned a while back) with slavery, then be my guest. Consider two alternatives. Alternative #1: Christ was opposed to slavery, but either he passed up opportunities to spell out that slavery was inconsistent with his moral system, or else his biographers did not record them. Alternative #2: Christ was opposed to violations of the Golden Rule and related precepts, but he was not opposed to slavery. Alternative #1, you may say, seems improbable - perhaps very improbable. Yet Alternative #2, many have argued, is simply impossible, unless perhaps JC was profoundly insane. Remember how Sherlock Holmes said "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"?

You have objected that the Bible never speaks out against slavery in clear and unambiguous language. But isn't logic as a clear and unambiguous language in its own right? If one proposition is a logical consequence of another proposition, does it matter that one of them was formulated in words and the other was expressed via the principles of reason? Both of them will speak, if anyone is inclined to listen.

Lest I be accused of forgetting that I recently conceded that there were rational arguments that JC was OK with slavery, I think that there are some mostly rational arguments to that effect. I think they have serious weaknesses, however, and tend to break down in the presence of the counterarguments I mentioned.


slave vs. surf. Opens property of a merchant the other the king, who has power by god. I'm sorry, but the spread of christianity simply patterned a change in the kind of slavery not the concept.

That's actually not the case; I addressed why in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1510074#post1510074) from another thread.


I feel like I should make it clear. I do not think Jesus and the bible are useless and I respect the good that can be gained from it. But they are not unique in thier ability to teach morals.

I completely agree with you; well put joobz.

[six7s]

Remember how Sherlock Holmes said "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"?

Once the impossible has been eliminated, there may well be two or more possible truths - seemingly something overlooked by both Arthur Conan Doyle and those with a confirmation bias that can be reinforced by judicious cherry-picking from an arcane, archaic and ambiguous text of which there are - in English alone - at least 5,000 versions according to Dr K. Dino Hovind, who can count to at least 6,000... maybe more

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1760247abf95d9618f.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10649)
YouTube » Hovind on Bible versions (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ykbnIQocq0)

[ceo_esq]

Once the impossible has been eliminated, there may well be two or more possible truths.

I think everyone recognizes that that's the case, although arguably not with respect to the past - which of course was Holmes' concern as a detective. One could argue that the determinacy of the past is logically necessary and thus a statement about the past (e.g., "the butler did it") is either true or impossible (so that if Holmes really manages to eliminate all impossibilities, whatever is left actually must be true). This leads into arguments about conceivability versus possibility and all manner of other things, though, so best not to veer into a discussion of Doylean modal logic, such as it is. But I digress. This isn't really material to the Conan Doyle allusion, and it's late ...


... and those with a confirmation bias that can be reinforced by judicious cherry-picking from an arcane, archaic and ambiguous text of which there are - in English alone - at least 5,000 versions according to Dr K. Dino Hovind, who can count to at least 6,000... maybe more

Could you elaborate on the charge of confirmation bias? Also, what do you view as the specific consequences, for this particular discussion, of the multiplicity of versions of the Bible?

[zooterkin]

Condonation generally connotes an implicit or deemed forgiveness, disregard, excusal or approval, so I’m not sure what kind of “explicit” condonation you have in mind. But I’m not aware of any biblical moral instruction explicitly approving slavery. Perhaps one exists. At any rate, my point was that one has to ignore at least as many (and in my view more) clear biblical texts, and deny the logical implications thereof, in mounting a scriptural defense of slavery than in mounting a scriptural attack on it.


Did you see the list of references that H3LL (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3395430&postcount=5) provided on the first page? References which refer to slavery as an accepted practice. For example:
Ephesians 6:9 (New International Version)

9 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.

That's Paul talking, a follower of Christ, not an Old Testament patriarch. Notice he does not instruct masters to free their slaves, only to treat them well. If that's not condoning slavery, I'm not sure how much more explicit it needs to be.

Yes, it's possible to construe certain other passages as implying that slavery is not a good thing, but that's partly because the bible is so self-contradictory. And you are having to ignore passages which go against your position, and take ones which only imply support for yours. I'll refer you again to the title of the thread; "Does the bible speak out against slavery?". Even if you can construct your argument from biblical sources, it's by careful choice of reference, and hardly constitutes as definite a statement as I would expect to meet the definition of 'speak out'.

[six7s]

Once the impossible has been eliminated, there may well be two or more possible truths.I think everyone recognizes that that's the case

Recognition? Perhaps... by many, but not by "everyone", esp amongst theists

Acknowledgment? My observations suggest that, amongst theists, this is as common as milk teeth in poultry

Could you elaborate on the charge of confirmation bias?

I can try

Each of us has, in varying degrees, a confirmation bias

Active scepticism requires that this is recognised

Passive acceptance of theological dogma doesn't even consider it

Also, what do you view as the specific consequences, for this particular discussion, of the multiplicity of versions of the Bible?

Inconsistent interpretations leading to, at the very best, only one accurate 'school' of conclusion makers

Note that Hovind (approx 4'30' through his video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ykbnIQocq0)) asserts that the Vatican, in adopting the Latin Douay-Rheims version, has been duped into accepting a version based on the "wrong manuscript"


Considering both the alleged omniwhatevernessness of Yaweh and the numbers and populations of the various (other) 'schools', it strikes me as farcical to consider that ANY version was 'divinely inspired'... either that or vacancies in paradise are limited

[Ladewig]

That's simply not true, and this has a lot to do with why, by the Middle Ages, slavery had by and large been stamped out in Christian countries. For almost as long as the religion has existed, there have been Christians condemning slavery as inconsistent with biblical precepts. This did not stop when slavery made a comeback, in a particularly vicious form, shortly after the discovery of the New World.



I am having a hard time with this claim. In the late 1700's in the United States, the number of Christians "condemning slavery as inconsistent with biblical precepts" must have been noticeably less than the number of Christians in favor of slavery.

[-Fran-]

Again, if you can think of a way it would be possible to reconcile the Golden Rule (and the other biblical concepts I mentioned a while back) with slavery,


As I said before, it's easy, if it's a given thing that the golden rule and the other concepts mentioned, do not apply to all physical human beings, which I suspect actually was the case! (Does anybody know more of this?) Exactly which groups of humans it did refer to, and which it didn't refer to, other people, such as experts of history and biblical times, can sure give a much more plausible answer to than I can. But I do think it's probably rather likely that slaves was one such groups of humans.

In later times, and in modern times, it was/is no longer possible to reconcile the golden rule with slavery, but I can't see why it wouldn't have been rather easy to do so back then.

[joobz]

The Bible doesn't really seem to present those as exceptions to the Golden Rule. Interpretations of Mt 10:34-39 and Mt 11:20 as an exhortation to Christians to violent conduct are generally implausible. Child-killing episodes in the OT may set a bad contrary example, but unless you can point to one of them that incorporates an express rule of conduct for human beings to the effect that we should generally take the initiative to kill our enemies' children (which presumably, in light of the NT, would no longer be in effect anyway under the theological equivalent of the doctrine of implied repeal), then you're still left with an uphill climb.
Those passages might suggest hypocrisy on God's part, of course, but I think a far easier project to argue around the child-killing passages than it is to argue around the anti-child-killing passages, which are far more direct and unambiguous. Moreover, the anti-child-killing ones tend to be phrased in the imperative.If you hold that the golden rule doesn't apply to everyone, then it's a simple deduction. Jesus gives some explanation of this in the parable of seeds. If you take the belief that the rocky, thorny ground people are not the equal in their acceptance of god, why would they be equal to the golden rule?
Especailly when Jesus clearly stated that he who puts him least on earth, jesus will call him least in heaven.

This isn't an stretch of logic, but a completely straight forward result from the text.

I very much like your interpretations of the text and hope more christians would adopt them, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

Again, if you can think of a way it would be possible to reconcile the Golden Rule (and the other biblical concepts I mentioned a while back) with slavery, then be my guest. Consider two alternatives. Alternative #1: Christ was opposed to slavery, but either he passed up opportunities to spell out that slavery was inconsistent with his moral system, or else his biographers did not record them. Alternative #2: Christ was opposed to violations of the Golden Rule and related precepts, but he was not opposed to slavery. Alternative #1, you may say, seems improbable - perhaps very improbable. Yet Alternative #2, many have argued, is simply impossible, unless perhaps JC was profoundly insane. Remember how Sherlock Holmes said "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"?To me the most plausible alternative is the one where we aknowledge that the bible is written by multiple people over multiple eras. As such, contradictions aren't unexpected.

As to alternative 2, it's a simply issue of being seperate but equal.



That's actually not the case; I addressed why in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1510074#post1510074) from another thread.
But in most cases, they were not free to leave. The bible was use to prop up men (kings and lords) above other men.




I completely agree with you; well put joobz.
A blind squirrel and his nuts, you know.

[ceo_esq]

If you hold that the golden rule doesn't apply to everyone, then it's a simple deduction.

There's the rub. It's only simple if you assume away the most difficult part to justify textually (that the Golden Rule isn't supposed to apply to everyone). More on this below.


Jesus gives some explanation of this in the parable of seeds. If you take the belief that the rocky, thorny ground people are not the equal in their acceptance of god, why would they be equal to the golden rule?
Especailly when Jesus clearly stated that he who puts him least on earth, jesus will call him least in heaven.

This isn't an stretch of logic, but a completely straight forward result from the text.

I think you're glossing over real problem with that argument, which is that it relies on a premise (that the Golden Rule wasn't intended to apply to all people) which the text seems to indicate is false.

We’re told “if you regard one person more than another, you commit sin” and that we must be like God who is not a “respecter of persons” (i.e. one who discriminates or takes account of who another person is when treating them). Not to mention (again) the parable of the Good Samaritan, which Jesus offered when bluntly asked to whom the Golden Rule does or doesn’t apply – and which makes no sense at all if the real answer was “not everyone”. Then we have the Sermon on the Mount:

Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?


I believe you already conceded that the Golden Rule and related teachings are incompatible with slavery, so the only loophole would be if they didn't apply to a particular individual or class. Jesus gave a fair number of specific examples of the kinds of people to whom it should apply, so let's aggregate them for review (in no particular order): good people, evil people, enemies, friends, the just, the unjust, relatives, strangers/foreigners, people who share your religion, people who don't share your religion, people in your ethnic group, people in other ethnic groups, etc. (this is not necessarily exhaustive) ... Which raises the question: if I have to apply the Golden Rule to all those folks, whom am I supposed to be able to enslave?


I very much like your interpretations of the text and hope more christians would adopt them, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

Thank you joobz. I wish I could take more credit, but I think these are fairly conventional interpretations.


To me the most plausible alternative is the one where we aknowledge that the bible is written by multiple people over multiple eras. As such, contradictions aren't unexpected.

True enough.


As to alternative 2, it's a simply issue of being seperate but equal.

It would be interesting to know if there's any historical system of slavery that actually qualified as "separate but equal". Would we even recognize it as slavery?


A blind squirrel and his nuts, you know.

:D

[Hokulele]

There's the rub. It's only simple if you assume away the most difficult part to justify textually (that the Golden Rule isn't supposed to apply to everyone). More on this below.

I think you're glossing over real problem with that argument, which is that it relies on a premise (that the Golden Rule wasn't intended to apply to all people) which the text seems to indicate is false.

We’re told “if you regard one person more than another, you commit sin” and that we must be like God who is not a “respecter of persons” (i.e. one who discriminates or takes account of who another person is when treating them). Not to mention (again) the parable of the Good Samaritan, which Jesus offered when bluntly asked to whom the Golden Rule does or doesn’t apply – and which makes no sense at all if the real answer was “not everyone”. Then we have the Sermon on the Mount:


I am going to nitpick just a bit, and say that this does not invalidate the point -Fran- and Joobz were making, in that it still assumes the reader knows what is meant by people. Although the Sermon on the Mount mentions just and unjust, good and evil, it is still talking about those considered persons. As a comparison, many eastern philosophies, including Buddhism and Taoism, make it explicitly clear that all life is valuable and in a sense equal. For example, the following passage is from Lieh Tzu as a response to the comment, "How kind Heaven is to humanity."

All life is born in the same way that we are and we are all of the same kind. Our species is not nobler than another; it is simply that the strongest and cleverest rule over the weaker and more stupid. Things eat each other and are eaten, but were not bred for this. To be sure, we take the things which we eat and consume them, but you cannot claim that Heaven made them in the first place just to eat.

Contrast this with the beginning of Genesis.

Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

And God said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food.

"Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food"; and it was so.


So for the Hebrews, it was self-evident that everything was placed on the earth to serve mankind and did not need to be questioned, whereas the Chinese philosophers saw that as another observation to be examined more closely. So when Jesus claims that one should love both their neighbor and their enemy, that is still not necessarily all inclusive in a modern sense, as we cannot know exactly what he is excluding without comparing it to another thought system.

I do agree completely that it should be interpreted in the modern sense, but not that it must. Much the way the US Constitution has been shown to be less inclusive and corrected, so too should the bible, and some people will always have a problem with that. I really wish Christians would adopt an amendment system for the New Testament. :(

[babbits]

Doc sez: :Injuring or killing slaves was punishable - up to death of the offending party."

Chapter and verse, please.

A man could beat his slave, but not beat him or her to death. If he did beat a slave to death, he would be 'punished'.

See Exodus 21:

20 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished,
21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property

And
7 "If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do.
--------------
The fact that someone was a slave seems to have demoted him or her from personhood to property.

And Jesus condoned slavery.

He condoned all the O.T. rules by the following blanket statement:

Matthew 5:17-18 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

[RoboTimbo]

Thomas Jefferson owned slaves.

[Olowkow]

http://bible.cc/exodus/21-6.htm

If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door or doorpost and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will serve his master for life.


This is my favorite slave verse.

[kmortis]

Thomas Jefferson owned slaves.
And Jesus condoned their beating, so it was A-ok.

[X]

Why are all DOC's old threads getting resurrected?

The things are harder to nail down than Jesus!

[kmortis]

Why are all DOC's old threads getting resurrected?

The things are harder to nail down than Jesus!
but are they harder to make submit than a slave?

[RoboTimbo]

but are they harder to make submit than a slave?

Let's ask Sally Hemmings.

[kmortis]

Let's ask Sally Hemmings.
Ok. Let's just make sure to bring a boat load of suntan lotion....