Godless Dave

I don't know for sure, but it may well have been. Much like (IMO) the Christian treatment of women as second-class citizens was an improvement over the Roman practice of treating them like disposable son-making machines. But when you elevate a practice to divine law it becomes static, and even if it was enlightened at first it will soon fall behind the times.

winstonjen

You're being too kind to the Biblical god.

Godot

If you actually read the OT, you'll see that god was a mean and vindictive codger. At the time, slavery was an accepted practice (as well as being vital to the economy); to go against the flow would have prevented such a rapid uptake of this religion.

Besides, the loving god is a fairly recent addition to the faith. Generally speaking, humanity is not quite as hostile or bloodthirsty as we used to be (at least compared to the OT). Theist have conveniently moved the goalposts by changing the attributes of their god with the times. What use does a mainly civil society have for a warmongering deity?

fatherphil

i figure because the purpose of the document at the time was not to abolish all the evils of man (which in and of itself, text has never had the power to do anyway) but rather to show the path to communion with and acceptance by God Himself.

the_cave

I really don't understand questions like this. Presumably slavery was "condoned" in the Bible because the humans writing it down assumed slavery was a part of the natural order of things.

Sometimes I feel like some here don't think Christianity has progressed in its understanding since 1750 or so. I feel like I'm talking to a Physiocrat or something.

meritocrat

So humans created the teachings of the Bible and not God?

As I said earlier, why don't the teachings of the Bible apply to ALL times?

fatherphil

i think in principle it does. although the trick is figuring out which part is anecdotal and which is compulsory.