The Bible And Slavery

[Aesthete]

. But slavery exists as a concept because it is a picture of salvation.

No, it is fucking not. Slavery is HORRIBLE.

But that's just your opinion. Without objective morality from God, someone else might have a different opinion. Poverty is horrible, too, and that will never be eradicated, and efforts to do so are often counterproductive. Indeed, Jesus said the poor we always have with us. That's just how it is in this sin-cursed world.

You demonstrate why this has to be THROWN OUT of the bible.

Which it never will be. God has preserved His word for us.

People like you will gladly embrace slavery because of this morally bankrupt doctrine that you WANT to be a slave if your master is cool enough.

You say that is morally bankrupt, but again, that's just your opinion. My Master is the Creator of the universe and He loves me and died for me and will never forsake me. So yeah, it's awesome being His slave! And what can I give Him? He is the Creator of the universe; I am only an unprofitable slave by nature. That's why I said, love-slave, as that is the whole reason God created the universe - to redeem for Himself a people that He will pour His love out on for all eternity, and who will in turn worship and praise Him forever! This is the eternal purpose of man. I do believe that inside every human is a desire to be owned and loved by a loving master, such as I've laid out. A child-parent relationship is much like this, and that's how God designed the family unit; indeed, Jesus told His disciples that they must be converted and become like little children to enter His kingdom. But hearts are hardened by sin and that corruption that is in this world, so hardened by having to work for everything in life to see that the Creator has a glorious and eternal rest for His bride, which is totally free for us.

Besides, by nature, and apart from Christ, everyone is a slave already - to the law of sin and death.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Without objective morality from God, someone else might have a different opinion.

First off, even IFF gods exist, and have any opinion, other people do have different opinions. So, how could you show that you have found THE opinion Of your (or any) god?

Second, if morality comes from a being, then it's not objective. It's his or her opinion.
It may be the Perfect Opinion of an omniscient being, just not objective.

 

[DBT]

Objective morality from God? Is that to be found in the OT where God orders slaughter, rape and enslavement?

 

[abaddon]

But that's just your opinion. Without objective morality from God, someone else might have a different opinion.

If God existed and had an opinion on it, it'd be just another opinion. He'd have a choice: to be right and denounce slavery, or to be wrong and not denounce it. Because the "higher authority" on this matter is what we can observe is harmful. The surest way to know what's right is to observe what everyone's interests are and respect the mutually beneficial ones.

Poverty is horrible, too, and that will never be eradicated, and efforts to do so are often counterproductive. Indeed, Jesus said the poor we always have with us. That's just how it is in this sin-cursed world.

This is where wanting out of reality gets you: 'Let the abusers abuse, I'll find peace of mind for myself in fantasyland'. The end effect is tolerance of immorality.

Besides, by nature, and apart from Christ, everyone is a slave already - to the law of sin and death.

Your abuse of language goes hand-in-hand with the dissociation you suffer. Calling living organisms the slaves of nature is like calling an eyeball a slave to the face. Your religious fantasy is no less silly than imagining the liberation of the eyeball from the face. Because it doesn't recognize how integral that nature and self are. Your metaphysics claims the self, or "soul", is separable. And we know, by observing the scientific facts of reality, that it isn't. The sense of self is a temporary pattern within nature. So without nature, there's no "you" to persist anywhere else than right here.

 

[Aesthete]

If God existed and had an opinion on it, it'd be just another opinion. He'd have a choice: to be right and denounce slavery, or to be wrong and not denounce it. Because the "higher authority" on this matter is what we can observe is harmful.

That's still totally subjective. God does exist and He is the standard of good. And there are none that are good, except God.

The surest way to know what's right is to observe what everyone's interests are and respect the mutually beneficial ones.

But slaveholders thought slavery was in their best interest. That's the problem: in this sin-cursed world, there is a principle of competition. Competition for food, money, resources, pleasure, etc. It's might-makes-right. The world still operates that way, and it's because of the curse of sin. There are some more restraints now compared to history (an artificial concept of human rights), but not many from the standpoint of God's perfection. There's really no such thing as "human rights." Man does not have rights before God. Man only has responsibilities. God alone has the authority to create the universe as He pleases and do what He will with His creation. And none can hinder Him or say, what doest Thou?

This is a picture of God that is not so commonly emphasized, but it is true and biblical. That is, the dominion of God. That is, His prerogative to do whatever He pleases without regard for men. What His soul desireth, even that He doeth. And, all things were created by Him and for Him.

This is where wanting out of reality gets you: 'Let the abusers abuse, I'll find peace of mind for myself in fantasyland'. The end effect is tolerance of immorality.

The gospel is the best hope for those who are not well off in this world (as well as those who are well off). Lusting for riches, freedom, pleasure in this life will only bring discontentment. You either cannot obtain what your heart desires, or if you do obtain it, it is too fleeting, and can always be lost. But in Christ, as Paul said, I know both how to be abased and how to abound.

 

[DBT]

If the bible is believed to be the word of God, the bible does not portray God as being good.

 

[abaddon]

Lusting for riches, freedom, pleasure in this life will only bring discontentment. You either cannot obtain what your heart desires, or if you do obtain it, it is too fleeting, and can always be lost.

True, that's called the hedonic treadmill. But you talk as if there's no alternative but either that or "abasement" to God. Its a false dichotomy. What I've been getting at is that the soteriological effects you seek in your life-hateful brand of Christianity can be found in other ways. So your presentation of 'it's either my way or you choose hell' is bullshit.

If you care about being even just a little convincing about it, can you show that anything you're saying is true? Or are you just making a display of what a fanatic is like?

 

[Bomb#20]

I didn't say laughing at them, I said laughing at the argument. Just that there is a 'debate' about the content in the bible is completely ridiculous - to me the only argument that should ever be made about the bible is that it's a man-made document, and therefore none of it's content has any meaning or validity to a 21st century world.

It's not that I don't appreciate that you're trying to undermine the bible, but for me I'd try to do it in a different way. Rather than lend any credence to arguments about the words of the bible, I'd rather just shake someone by the shoulders and say wake ... up.

The disadvantage of shaking someone and telling him to wake up, compared to finding and pointing out the error in his argument, is that you don't have to be right to tell somebody to wake up. The debate may be completely ridiculous, but if we don't take the trouble to debate then we just get everybody telling everybody else to wake up, a shouting match between The Great Awakening and The Great Awokening.

 

[rousseau]

I didn't say laughing at them, I said laughing at the argument. Just that there is a 'debate' about the content in the bible is completely ridiculous - to me the only argument that should ever be made about the bible is that it's a man-made document, and therefore none of it's content has any meaning or validity to a 21st century world.

It's not that I don't appreciate that you're trying to undermine the bible, but for me I'd try to do it in a different way. Rather than lend any credence to arguments about the words of the bible, I'd rather just shake someone by the shoulders and say wake ... up.

The disadvantage of shaking someone and telling him to wake up, compared to finding and pointing out the error in his argument, is that you don't have to be right to tell somebody to wake up. The debate may be completely ridiculous, but if we don't take the trouble to debate then we just get everybody telling everybody else to wake up, a shouting match between The Great Awakening and The Great Awokening.

I don't mean to literally tell someone to wake up - I mean to frame the argument in such a way that points out how ridiculous it is. When you construct your arguments in ways that make the bible more believable it sounds like you're pointing out someone's error, but your really just validating their extremely dumb argument.

Instead of 'what if the bible is wrong about this', say 'what evidence do you have that the bible is the word of God' in the first place. Attack the core assumptions and ideas, not the periphery. It's the very validation of the periphery as worth debate that gives credibility to the core ideas.

 

[Bomb#20]

Which is why spreading around the idea, in a mostly Christian country, that the Bible allows for or even requires slavery (which it does not) is in my opinion dangerous and irresponsible. ... But this particular disagreement has a bloody history, a dangerous present, and a worrying future if even atheists are taking the pro-slavery side of it. People who don't take this seriously, should.

When you say "that the Bible allows for or even requires slavery (which it does not)", you are cherry-picking. The fact is, the Bible was written by many people over many centuries and reflects many different opinions. It is simply not consistent on the topic of slavery. Pointing this out -- drawing attention to facts that exhibit the other side to some half-truth you posted -- does not constitute "taking the pro-slavery side of it".

 

[Aesthete]

Lusting for riches, freedom, pleasure in this life will only bring discontentment. You either cannot obtain what your heart desires, or if you do obtain it, it is too fleeting, and can always be lost.

True, that's called the hedonic treadmill. But you talk as if there's no alternative but either that or "abasement" to God. Its a false dichotomy. What I've been getting at is that the soteriological effects you seek in your life-hateful brand of Christianity can be found in other ways.

There are only two alternatives - either you have no afterlife in your worldview, and so no hope beyond this life. Or you believe in a false plan of salvation, which entails works of the law for righteousness and salvation. Either way, you're a slave of sin, death, and fear. The one who is working for his salvation has not entered into rest. God gave the Sabbath to His people as a perpetual covenant. Spiritually, in Christ, we don't observe a day of the week, but we keep holy the Sabbath because we've rested from all labor to be right before God. The Sabbath fulfilled spiritually in Christ.

If you care about being even just a little convincing about it, can you show that anything you're saying is true?

Absolutely. What do you want to know?

 

[Keith&Co.]

If you care about being even just a little convincing about it, can you show that anything you're saying is true?

You may have to explain the concept of evidence, here.

As a creationist, he's mostly reating to other side's stories. All he's offered for his side is a book, and claims that the science is incomplete, therefore creation.

 

[Bomb#20]

Exodus 21:20–21 mandates punishment of slave owners who beat their slave.

And if a man beats his male or female servant with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished.

Actually, he (slave owner) only gets punished if they die right then and there. If they linger from their beating and die a few days later, no offense has been done at all, in the eyes of God.

How is it that you can cite the source and yet not actually read it? From your citation, Exodus 21:20-21, the slave owner is not to be punished for beating their slave unless the slave dies from the beating fairly soon after the beating. If the slave recovers from the beating the slave owner is "not to be punished".

Exodus 21:20-21
20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result,
21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.

This is a point on which different Bible translations disagree with one another. What skepticalbip quoted was the New International Version; ideologyhunter read a different version. Below I've quoted some sample translations; there are many more at the website. Here's the Complete Jewish Bible:

"21 except that if the slave lives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his property."

King James Version:

"21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money."

The Living Bible:

"21 However, if the slave does not die for a couple of days, then the man shall not be punished—for the slave is his property."

Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition:

"21 But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished; for the slave is his money."

World English Bible:

"21 Notwithstanding, if his servant gets up after a day or two, he shall not be punished, for the servant is his property."

The Wycliffe Bible:

"21 Soothly if the servant liveth over this beating one day, or twain, the smiter shall not be subject to the pain of death, for the servant is his master’s chattel."

Young's Literal Translation:

"21 only if he remain a day, or two days, he is not avenged, for he [is] his money."

Also, for what it's worth, here's how Martin Luther translated it:

"21 Bleibt er aber einen oder zwei Tage am Leben, so soll er darum nicht gestraft werden; denn es ist sein Geld."

which my sketchy German and Google Translate agree means:

"21 But if he lives a day or two, he shall not be punished for it; because it's his money."

So different translators evidently read the same Hebrew* and some of them thought it meant the slave recovers after one or two days and others thought it meant the slave dies after one or two days. On the one hand, the older translations saying the slave dies are less informed by modern philological scholarship; on the other hand, their linguistic objectivity can't have been contaminated by modern antislavery sentiment. So it's not clear whether God himself instructs us in the excusable way to beat your slaves to death.

One thing that puzzles me about Christian fundamentalists -- people who believe that the Bible is the literal Word of God and that living according to God's directions is literally the most important thing there is for a Christian to do -- is how very, very few of them have taken the trouble to read God's Word for themselves, and learn Hebrew.

(* Moreover, some translators didn't work directly from Hebrew but retranslated from St. Jerome's translation into Latin. "21 Sin autem uno die vel duobus supervixerit, non subjacebit poenae, quia pecunia illius est." Good luck to any classicists...)

 

[DBT]

The stipulation appears to be survival for a day or two, implying that beyond a day or two it doesn't matter if the slave dies, the owner is not punished.

 

[Politesse]

Which is why spreading around the idea, in a mostly Christian country, that the Bible allows for or even requires slavery (which it does not) is in my opinion dangerous and irresponsible. ... But this particular disagreement has a bloody history, a dangerous present, and a worrying future if even atheists are taking the pro-slavery side of it. People who don't take this seriously, should.

When you say "that the Bible allows for or even requires slavery (which it does not)", you are cherry-picking. The fact is, the Bible was written by many people over many centuries and reflects many different opinions. It is simply not consistent on the topic of slavery. Pointing this out -- drawing attention to facts that exhibit the other side to some half-truth you posted -- does not constitute "taking the pro-slavery side of it".

It does if, faced with that inconsistency, you refuse to admit the ambiguity, and simply insist "the Bible endorses slavery". A statement which also endorses those who lean on Biblical arguments to justify their enslavement of others. You're not making some sort of nuanced argument, you're just taking the pro-slaver's side in an ancient sociotheological argument.

 

[Politesse]

One thing that puzzles me about Christian fundamentalists -- people who believe that the Bible is the literal Word of God and that living according to God's directions is literally the most important thing there is for a Christian to do -- is how very, very few of them have taken the trouble to read God's Word for themselves, and learn Hebrew.

To such folks, the Bible is just an icon to be worshipped like a statue, not a book to be read like a book. They're the same people who obsess over their "Constitutional rights!" but have never read the Constitution nor even know enough English to understand all of it if they tried. You think they're going to pick up Hebrew and Koine? How? In the absence of schooling.

 

[Bomb#20]

It is simply not consistent on the topic of slavery. Pointing this out -- drawing attention to facts that exhibit the other side to some half-truth you posted -- does not constitute "taking the pro-slavery side of it".

It does if, faced with that inconsistency, you refuse to admit the ambiguity, and simply insist "the Bible endorses slavery".

So who the heck among us refused to admit the Bible is self-contradictory? "The Bible endorses slavery" is a fact, just as "The Bible endorses Heli as the father of Joseph" is a fact. That there's another fact -- another place where the Bible endorses Jacob as the father of Joseph -- doesn't wipe away the first fact. Are there places where the Bible expresses principles that slavery conflicts with? Yes. Do those expressions wipe away the places where it endorses slavery? No. They are both real elements of an incoherent whole.

A statement which also endorses those who lean on Biblical arguments to justify their enslavement of others.

Oh for the love of god! You condemned Rhea for putting an unreasonable gloss on your statements; so don't you go putting an unreasonable gloss on other posters' statements. Atheists who say "the Bible endorses slavery" are not in any way, shape, or form endorsing those who lean on Biblical arguments to justify enslavement. We are condemning them -- condemning them for shamefully choosing to base their moral judgments on a patently immoral source.

 

[Bomb#20]

The stipulation appears to be survival for a day or two, implying that beyond a day or two it doesn't matter if the slave dies, the owner is not punished.

I'm inclined to agree. Casually Googling the question didn't turn up any philological sites explaining how the "if the slave recovers" interpretation was extracted from the Hebrew original; it did turn up a number of sites accusing the NIV translators of systematically imposing their own sectarian theology on a variety of different Bible verses.

My own reading-between-the-lines is that if it took a slave two days to die, then the beating probably wasn't all that much more severe than the ordinary vicious corporal punishments to encourage future obedience that the authors' slave-owner-dominated culture dished out day-in and day-out. So surviving two days was evidence that the owner probably did not intend to kill the slave. So the judges would have figured this made beating him to death manslaughter, not murder. Murder is punished by death; manslaughter is punished by monetary damages, and the loss of the slave is the monetary damages, "because it's his money".

 

[Bomb#20]

To such folks, the Bible is just an icon to be worshipped like a statue, not a book to be read like a book. They're the same people who obsess over their "Constitutional rights!" but have never read the Constitution nor even know enough English to understand all of it if they tried. You think they're going to pick up Hebrew and Koine? How? In the absence of schooling.

You're stereotyping your outgroup. Lots of Biblical literalists have read the whole Bible, and lots of them have had plenty of schooling. As for those who haven't...

https://www.fluentin3months.com/learn-hebrew-free/

 

[Politesse]

I don't care if someone has read the Bible or not (though people are very much prone to "conscious exaggeration" on that point) so much as whether they understood the point of it all. If you didn't learn to read critically, what good did your schooling do you?