Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Johnny Skeptic · 11-23-2008, 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ksen

Whoops, I meant to [say that the Bible] does not specify slavery as a sin.

But that is exactly what critics of the Bible are saying too. It is not reasonable for anyone to assume that a loving God would tolerate the unfair abuse of certain groups of people in any era. Based upon my arguments in the opening post, I believe that the logical conclusion is that a loving, moral God did not inspire what the Bible says about slavery.

At the very least, it is reasonable for people to withhold accepting the God of the Bible pending his explanations for writings that he inspired regarding slavery. It is never rational to rubber stamp everything that any being says and does, especially if all of his written communications with humans are made through questionable human proxies, never tangibly, in person.

The Old Testament is far from being completely harsh. For instance, there is the tender and touching story of Ruth, Naomi, and Basil in the book of Ruth. How could a God who inspired that story abuse slaves?

sschlichter · 11-23-2008, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesABrown

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

The notion of slavery in the bible probably does make a lot of people uncomfortable.

That's quite an understatement. Non-believers are not made uncomfortable, though. We're just appalled by it. Not by the existence of slavery in ancient cultures--that was almost ubiquitous. We're appalled that slavery--even slavery regulated by the OT standards--would be offered up by a God that's also claimed to hold the highest standard of morality. Yes, the cultural context was different, which is yet another reason why ancient biblical morality is not relevant to a modern society. We no longer populate a culture in which slavery is commonplace (in the Western world, of course. . . slavery still continues unabated in many parts of the world, sadly, in many religious countries.)

But the hypocrisy creeps in when some claim that cultural context does not apply when it comes to other doctrines, say, that of adultery. After all, if God can forbid adultery in five bare words ("Thou shalt not commit adultery.")--cultural context be damned--what was preventing him from doing the same with slavery? Culture? Smells like a cop-out. The ancient culture that the Hebrews found themselves in was also polytheistic, and yet they managed to embrace monotheism despite it. What is it about slavery that required so much hedging and excusing and regulation and justification for its modified Hebrew format, but can be unequivocally forbidden in today's era?

I can see viewing slavery in that way.

However, I think it is actually a misunderstanding of the practice. it was a voluntary option for the poor to avoid starvation. The Bible does insist that the poor and slaves are to be treated fairly. In the Bible, it is against the law to take a slave forcibly.

(Exo 21:16) "Whoever kidnaps someone and sells him, or is caught still holding him, must surely be put to death.
(Exo 21:5) But if the servant should declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,'
(Exo 21:6) then his master must bring him to the judges, and he will bring him to the door or the doorposts, and his master will pierce his ear with an awl, and he shall serve him forever.

(Deut 24:7) If a man is found kidnapping a person from among his fellow Israelites, and regards him as mere property and sells him, that kidnapper must die. In this way you will purge evil from among you.

In proof-texting Lev 25 like was done in this thread, you ignore the passages that insist on slaves being treated fairly. There are no passages that condone forcible slavery or there abuse.

There was no such thing as welfare. the poor did not get a check from the government so they could eat. These provisions were for the poor. The assumption that God wanted slaves to be abused is an absurd interpretation. the laws were there to forbid their abuse and you are assuming that the slavery in the old testament is not voluntary for the slave. As a matter of fact, I expect you cannot find an instance where it is clearly involuntary.

~Steve

kiwimac · 11-24-2008, 02:04 AM

Moved to BCH just to be consistent.

Johnny Skeptic · 11-24-2008, 04:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

In proof-texting Lev 25 like was done in this thread, you ignore the passages that insist on slaves being treated fairly.

And you ignore passages that show that slaves were not treated fairly. How do you explain the inconsistency? Consider the following Scriptures:

Item 1

Exodus 21:2-4 (NIV)

"If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free."

Item 2

Exodus 21:12-14 (NIV)

"Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death. However, if he does not do it intentionally, but God lets it happen, he is to flee to a place I will designate. But if a man schemes and kills another man deliberately, take him away from my altar and put him to death."

Item 3

Exodus 21:20-21 (NIV)

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

Item 4

Leviticus 25:44-45 (NIV)

"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

Regarding item 1, please note that after six years, a Hebrew slave gained his freedom, but item 4 shows that slaves from other nations could be forced to be slaves for life. Part of item 4 says "You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly." That is a good example of racial bigotry, but what else should one expect from a race of people who appointed themselves as God's chosen people. Chosen for what?

Regarding item 2, if a Hebrew deliberately killed another Hebrew, he was put to death, but item 3 shows that if a Hebrew deliberately killed a slave, he was not put to death, only punished, but not punished at all if the slave recovered in a day or two.

Now are you going to honestly tell us that no Scriptures in the Bible advocate the mistreatment of slaves? How can it be right for a Hebrew to be put to death if he killed another Hebrew, but only punished if he killed a slave, and not punished at all if the slave recovered within a few days? How can it be right for Hebrew slaves to be guaranteed freedom after six years, and non-Hebrew slaves not to be guaranteed the right of freedom after any period of time?

Regarding "You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly," doesn't that essentially mean "you can will your non-Hebrew slaves to your heirs since they are your property, but do not ruthlessly treat your Hebrew slaves like that."?

What about the U.S. Civil War? Jefferson Davis was the President of the Southern Confederacy. He favored slavery. He used the Bible to defend his position. Was he wrong?

ksen · 11-24-2008, 06:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesABrown

That's quite an understatement. Non-believers are not made uncomfortable, though. We're just appalled by it. Not by the existence of slavery in ancient cultures--that was almost ubiquitous. We're appalled that slavery--even slavery regulated by the OT standards--would be offered up by a God that's also claimed to hold the highest standard of morality. Yes, the cultural context was different, which is yet another reason why ancient biblical morality is not relevant to a modern society. We no longer populate a culture in which slavery is commonplace (in the Western world, of course. . . slavery still continues unabated in many parts of the world, sadly, in many religious countries.)

But the hypocrisy creeps in when some claim that cultural context does not apply when it comes to other doctrines, say, that of adultery. After all, if God can forbid adultery in five bare words ("Thou shalt not commit adultery.")--cultural context be damned--what was preventing him from doing the same with slavery? Culture? Smells like a cop-out. The ancient culture that the Hebrews found themselves in was also polytheistic, and yet they managed to embrace monotheism despite it. What is it about slavery that required so much hedging and excusing and regulation and justification for its modified Hebrew format, but can be unequivocally forbidden in today's era?

I can see viewing slavery in that way.

However, I think it is actually a misunderstanding of the practice. it was a voluntary option for the poor to avoid starvation. The Bible does insist that the poor and slaves are to be treated fairly. In the Bible, it is against the law to take a slave forcibly.

(Exo 21:16) "Whoever kidnaps someone and sells him, or is caught still holding him, must surely be put to death.
(Exo 21:5) But if the servant should declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,'
(Exo 21:6) then his master must bring him to the judges, and he will bring him to the door or the doorposts, and his master will pierce his ear with an awl, and he shall serve him forever.

(Deut 24:7) If a man is found kidnapping a person from among his fellow Israelites, and regards him as mere property and sells him, that kidnapper must die. In this way you will purge evil from among you.

In proof-texting Lev 25 like was done in this thread, you ignore the passages that insist on slaves being treated fairly. There are no passages that condone forcible slavery or there abuse.

There was no such thing as welfare. the poor did not get a check from the government so they could eat. These provisions were for the poor. The assumption that God wanted slaves to be abused is an absurd interpretation. the laws were there to forbid their abuse and you are assuming that the slavery in the old testament is not voluntary for the slave. As a matter of fact, I expect you cannot find an instance where it is clearly involuntary.

~Steve

:notworthy: :notworthy:

Excellent post.

Johnny Skeptic · 11-24-2008, 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

I can see viewing slavery in that way.

However, I think it is actually a misunderstanding of the practice. it was a voluntary option for the poor to avoid starvation. The Bible does insist that the poor and slaves are to be treated fairly. In the Bible, it is against the law to take a slave forcibly.

(Exo 21:16) "Whoever kidnaps someone and sells him, or is caught still holding him, must surely be put to death.
(Exo 21:5) But if the servant should declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,'

(Exo 21:6) then his master must bring him to the judges, and he will bring him to the door or the doorposts, and his master will pierce his ear with an awl, and he shall serve him forever.

(Deut 24:7) If a man is found kidnapping a person from among his fellow Israelites, and regards him as mere property and sells him, that kidnapper must die. In this way you will purge evil from among you.

In proof-texting Lev 25 like was done in this thread, you ignore the passages that insist on slaves being treated fairly. There are no passages that condone forcible slavery or there abuse.

There was no such thing as welfare. the poor did not get a check from the government so they could eat. These provisions were for the poor. The assumption that God wanted slaves to be abused is an absurd interpretation. the laws were there to forbid their abuse and you are assuming that the slavery in the old testament is not voluntary for the slave. As a matter of fact, I expect you cannot find an instance where it is clearly involuntary.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ksen

Excellent post.

No it wasn't, as I clearly showed in my post #94, which you conveniently did not mention. The opening post clearly proves that at least in some cases, slaves were mistreated. How do you harmonize the inconsistences regarding some Scriptures that endorse the fair treatment of slaves, and some Scriptures than endorse the mistreatment of slaves? Did you actually read the opening post? If so, why didn't you understand what you read?

Anat · 11-24-2008, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Either that or he progressively reveals his morality and standards human society evolves enough to handle it.

Hmm. And at some point humans evolved so much they learned how to progress without further revelations from this god? Why believe his revelations were necessary for previous evolution of moral standards? Or was he rather holding them back? The Greeks managed not-so-badly without him.

Clivedurdle · 11-24-2008, 11:08 AM

On relative morality, what was Spartacus's view of slavery?

http://www.freeratio.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=246623

And discussion of different types of slavery really needs to note they are all forms of slavery.

http://www.antislavery.org/

I'm positive Spartacus lived and died well before Jesus was a twinkle in God's eye but I might be wrong.

Quote:

Spartacus (c. 109 BC-71 BC), according to Roman historians, was a slave who became the leader (or possibly one of several leaders) in the unsuccessful slave uprising against the Roman Republic known as the Third Servile War.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartacus

Quote:
After the battle, legionaries found and rescued 3,000 unharmed Roman prisoners in their camp. 6,600 of Spartacus's followers were crucified along the via Appia (or the Appian Way) from Brundisium to Rome. Crassus never gave orders for the bodies to be taken down, thus travelers were forced to see the bodies for years after the final battle.

Around 5,000 slaves, however, escaped the capture. They fled north and were later destroyed by Pompey, who was coming back from Roman Iberia. This enabled him also to claim credit for ending this war. Pompey was greeted as a hero in Rome while Crassus received little credit or celebration.

There are features of xianity that make it look as if it might be a deliberately contrived imperial invention to pacify the slaves.

http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=236616

http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=23866

Quote:

Quote:

http://www.joelbainerman.com/articles/new_test.asp

Why The Romans Created Christianity And The New Testament

Why did the Romans need something new to keep the slaves enslaved?

Because the Pharisees urged and end to slavery, democratic forms of government, and doing away with the oligarchy. Since Rome had no interest in stopping slavery, it installed its puppet, Herod, and made him appear Jewish so that the Jews would give up and side with the Romans. It never worked. The Romans were in danger of losing its Imperial government to a "local government of the people" thus they needed to create a replacement ideology for the slaves to what the Pharisees were proposing.

In order to promote slavery and create a religion that would be considered attractive to the slaves, the Romans gave the slaves a custom-made religion (set of concepts and beliefs) which had simple, common traits: humility, meek shall inherit, a promise of afterlife of bliss in heaven after years of suffering on earth, good overruns evil in the end, etc. As the Romans were a sophisticated bunch they knew what the problem was and how to solve it: a new religion that all the Gentiles/slaves can be "attached to" so that they think they are free. With their people at the top they pulled the strings either way. The Romans were neither stupid nor gamblers.

A new religion was needed for the slaves so they will think they are more free and better off and of under more of their own free will- but it will be an illusion- never mind- but mission accomplished on behalf of the Romans.

Christianity made the slaves even better patriots and to "render unto Caesar". It supported nationalism, loyalty, patriotism and commitment to serve Rome. The new religion was also useful to the Romans because it gave the members of the empire a common enemy in the Jews. A double whammy end result for Rome.

The new religion was a concoction of the best components taken from earlier and pre-existing religions and belief systems, along with some new concepts that would be "unique to Christians" to give these poor, destitute slaves some reason to smile when they get up in the morning. That is what the Romans gave them: a drug called Christianity, which enabled the slaves to better accept their lot in life. 25% of the Roman population were slaves.

Quote:

Both Nietzsche and Stirner saw in Christianity the leveler of the human race, the breaker of man's will to dare and to do. They saw in every movement built on Christian morality and ethics attempts not at the emancipation from slavery, but for the perpetuation thereof.

In an identical fashion to breeding animals for their most useful characteristics, and improving plants, and strengthening the potency of drugs, it looks to me as if a religion was deliberately cultivated and bred, with very potent effects in creating a unified hierarchical state with compliant army and slaves. A Persian Empire for the west.

Of course, nothing ever breeds true, the mongrels and mutants being labelled in this case heretics, and the focus on theology leading to useless soldiers!

Grafting it onto Judaism was a particularly brilliant move, giving it a feel of an ancient root stock, and then attempting to eradicate the original in the Jewish wars.

Xianity is a direct invention of the Romans, with the move to the empire from the Republic, of creating an eternal emperor - the Persians had had that idea for 500 years and it makes sense against the pesky Greek democratic priesthood of all believer ways. Paganism really died at the Rubicon. [/quote]

James Brown · 11-24-2008, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

However, I think it is actually a misunderstanding of the practice. it was a voluntary option for the poor to avoid starvation.

I disagree, as seen here:

Leviticus 25:

Quote:

35 " 'If one of your countrymen becomes poor and is unable to support himself among you, help him as you would an alien or a temporary resident, so he can continue to live among you. 36 Do not take interest of any kind [a] from him, but fear your God, so that your countryman may continue to live among you. 37 You must not lend him money at interest or sell him food at a profit. 38 I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt to give you the land of Canaan and to be your God.
39 " 'If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you, do not make him work as a slave. 40 He is to be treated as a hired worker or a temporary resident among you; he is to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. 41 Then he and his children are to be released, and he will go back to his own clan and to the property of his forefathers. 42 Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves.

There's nothing here about selling one's self into slavery to avoid poverty. Indentured servitude at best. Any commands about mercy toward slaves must not apply to those who've voluntarily indentured themselves, since verse 39 says, "do not make him work as a slave."

So hey, some verses say be nice to your slaves; others say you can beat them but don't kill them. There are some who would argue that's inconsistent, no?

And again, we're talking in circles. If one begins with the assumption that every command uttered out of Moses' mouth (when speaking for God) must be morally good, then slavery--be it the spoils of war or voluntary servitude--has to be accepted as good. Others evaluate the morality of Moses' God based on the commands and find him to be immoral. The issue is not, "How much can I abuse my slave--none? A little bit? A lot?" The real question is, "Should slavery exist at all?" God apparently had much to say about the first question (albeit different things at different times) but he had zero to say about the second.

Johnny Skeptic · 11-24-2008, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

However, I think it is actually a misunderstanding of the practice. It was a voluntary option for the poor to avoid starvation.

Ok, you said that slavery was voluntary. Was being severely beaten or killed voluntary too?

Are you not aware that some Scriptures endorse the killing of non-Hebrew slaves, but forbid the killing of Hebrew slaves?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-24-2008, 02:04 AM	#93
kiwimac Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Mayfield, NZ Posts: 1,407	Moved to BCH just to be consistent.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.