The Bible And Slavery

[Rhea]

Politesse, you keep claiming that we are somehow “supporting” the idea of slavery by pointing out where the idea comes from.

That’s weird.

 

[Jarhyn]

Politesse, you keep claiming that we are somehow “supporting” the idea of slavery by pointing out where the idea comes from.

That’s weird.

Well, you, in your devil's advocacy, have supported a "biblical argument for slavery". That absolutely is happening. You are presenting the same arguments that a slavery theist would present, and Politesse is not wrong to point out that the works of John aren't really compatible with it in a honest and isolated reading: if we ourselves do not wish to be forced to live in slavery we ought treat our neighbors in kind and not force them to live in slavery.

The issue trying to be pointed out, though, is that christians made these arguments and continue to make them, and continue to ignore the extent slave labor. That these arguments have been made and only see weak rebut by a single author, or perhaps some additional rebut in some of the fan translations thereof.

The issue is that ancient sensibilities were and always have been strangely warped concerning slavery as it was a common economic crutch that was, and unfortunately still is, ubiquitous. This Ubiquity created and creates oft-glaring ethical blind spots... Like which concerns prison labor.

Politesse: people will not fail to make these arguments regardless of whether we.point out that they are there to be made, especially those who make all their arguments via selective bible verse. You can't wave that ambiguity away. It is there and I am sorry that the bible does, in fact, have a lot of discussion not on whether but HOW and WHO to enslave. It's not tongue in cheek or sarcastic. It's dry and ho-hum legal codes.

You can't argue an authoritarian out of an authoritatively delivered opinion. I find that the Bible's ambiguity in slavery is an excellent reason to find better, more secure ethical foundation than a book written by bronze age sheep "herders" playing a generational game of telephone

 

[Politesse]

The issue trying to be pointed out, though, is that christians made these arguments and continIue to make them, and continue to ignore the extent slave labor.

The entire world turns a blind eye to the role of slave labor. But I do my best to oppose pro-slavery arguments, whenever they are made and on whichever lips.

 

[atrib]

You say that my position is just like that of a slaver, despite the fact that my argument is both more logically and morally justifiable.

Oh my fucking god. That has no relation at all to anything that I said.

Then you must not have expressed it very well. Do you, in fact, admit that slavery is wrong, and agree with me that no one who claims to love their neighbor as their self can possibly enslave another human being without contradiction?

Yet the Bible does exactly that; it provides explicit instructions on how slaves are to be beaten, and how the children of slaves become the property of slave owners. Which is incompatible with the Bible asking you to love your neighbor. Which makes the divine authorship/inspiration of the Bible suspect, since an all-knowing, loving god would know better than to include such contradictions in a book that represents its position. That is the fucking point. The point you are trying to dodge so desperately.

And Jesus has not been conclusively identified to be an actual historical figure. You keep stating or implying that he was, and attributing all kinds of teachings to him.

 

[Politesse]

Yet the Bible does exactly that; it provides explicit instructions on how slaves are to be beaten, and how the children of slaves become the property of slave owners. Which is incompatible with the Bible asking you to love your neighbor.

If you're going to break a rule, which rule would you prefer to break? Which would be better for a person to break? Jesus himself had many teachings on this very point; legalism alone will not save you if you forego love.

Which makes the divine authorship/inspiration of the Bible suspect, since an all-knowing, loving god would know better than to include such contradictions in a book that represents its position. That is the fucking point. The point you are trying to dodge so desperately.

And Jesus has not been conclusively identified to be an actual historical figure. You keep stating or implying that he was, and attributing all kinds of teachings to him.

I'm not trying to "dodge" anything. I've never been a Biblical inerrantist, and I am not now. But the historical status of Jesus has little to do with the morality of slavery. The book of Matthew could have been written by a bored Phrygian housewife in 165 CE, and its central thesis would be just as valid.

 

[Jarhyn]

Then you must not have expressed it very well. Do you, in fact, admit that slavery is wrong, and agree with me that no one who claims to love their neighbor as their self can possibly enslave another human being without contradiction?

Yet the Bible does exactly that; it provides explicit instructions on how slaves are to be beaten, and how the children of slaves become the property of slave owners. Which is incompatible with the Bible asking you to love your neighbor. Which makes the divine authorship/inspiration of the Bible suspect, since an all-knowing, loving god would know better than to include such contradictions in a book that represents its position. That is the fucking point. The point you are trying to dodge so desperately.

And Jesus has not been conclusively identified to be an actual historical figure. You keep stating or implying that he was, and attributing all kinds of teachings to him.

My response to this is to say that the seminal work of John is a fairly good story to read, along with the seminal works of Plato, and Shakespeare and Machiavelli, and Twain and yes even Calvin and Hobbes, perhaps both the cartoon and the individuals, and Camus, and Voltaire. There are too many good books, and these are all good stories.

The book of Matthew could have been written by a bored Phrygian housewife in 165 CE, and its central thesis would be just as valid.

Exactly.

The problem is the rest of the bible. If you COULD get people to recognize John's book AS A BOOK, it's not a terrible book! It's got a lot of truth in it regardless of whether it was true (and I'm betting it wasn't!). It got me to where I needed to go, but I would have gotten further, faster, if I had started that way.

The problem is, we can't, and you can't get the people who want to "cherry pick" specifically the rotten cherries so they can throw them at you, to not do that.

I think the path forward is to agree factually that the bible, as a complete document, is not a good piece of literature so much as a document of religious history with some really funny, and sad, and very fucking monstrous shitin it. I think that is possible. I'm pretty sure that's the point of the thread; not to impugn the authorings of John or Matthew, whether they were self-inserts or pen names respectively.

But you still have to admit that up front. That the bible itself is a mixture of dubious junk. And that even John's book, ESPECIALLY John's book, reinforces that.

 

[Rhea]

Well said. That is exactly the point of the thread to me. To discuss how all the mosnstrous shit in the bible allows monstrous cherry picking and it always always has, and it always will, as long at those parts are considered canon.

A movement to change the tide to make them not canon would be a vas but beneficial undertaking.
Convincing individual people to cherry pick different things has no long term impact, IMHO, when the bad cherries remain in the bucket.

 

[abaddon]

To discuss how all the monstrous shit in the bible allows monstrous cherry picking and it always always has, and it always will, as long at those parts are considered canon.

Or as long as any parts of the Bible are considered authoritative to any degree at all.

Instead of "which bits are the good bits?", why not press this question upon everyone: "Why take any part of it as authoritative?"

So whether the Bible is "the word of God" or a motley collection of books with a nice message here and there... to hell with venerating it to any extent at all. All the important messages you could get from it are known without it. It's worthy of respecting as a historical relic but that's all.

Jesus, Shakespeare, Voltaire, and all others... none are authoritative sources of moral insight. The reason to love self and others can never be because a wise person said you should.

There should be no end of Bible-bashing for so long as anyone thinks it's authoritative about moral matters. The reason is to undermine reliance on any allegedly "authoritative" source outside our reasoning and intersubjective experience. The targeted persons for learning to doubt better are the 'metaphorist' readers no less than inerrantist readers. Their revered book is not an authoritative source for moral lessons.

"But Jesus's message is love" is a lame point because it doesn't matter that a fucknut named Jesus said it.

 

[DBT]

Too many contradictions. Love on one hand, eternal damnation on the other. Love thy neighbor, but slaves obey your master.....

 

[ideologyhunter]

Blood sacrifice. Biblegod demands blood! The Aztecs would've understood him.

 

[Atheos]

I've honestly tried to read objectively the arguments put forth in this thread by Politesse and others in efforts to defend that the bible does not advocate slavery. I personally find little else besides apologetic compartmentalization in them.

Arguing that "love one another" and "love thy neighbor" is a prohibition against slavery is quite hollow considering the fact that these words were written and repeated in the midst of a society rampant with slaves and that nobody gave any indication they had a problem reconciling the two.

If ever there was a good opportunity for any New Testament author to write definitively about the subject is the short epistle to Philemon. This is a letter from Paul to a slave owner named Philemon, concerning a runaway slave named Onesimus. The letter hints that Onesimus ran away but encountered Paul where he was subsequently converted and became a Christian. It's apparent that Paul would prefer that Philemon free Onesimus but is sending Onesimus back to his owner to accept whatever consequences await him for having run away.

Paul could have taken that moment to state with certainty that the practice of buying and selling human beings is an unacceptable behavior for a Christian. He certainly showed no reticence to condemn homosexuality, adultery, pimping and women speaking aloud during worship. But for some strange reason he draws the line here, only hinting in the most polite words that he'd appreciate it if Philemon would do that which is "convenient." He raises the bar of "this is just a favor I'm asking" by reminding Philemon of some unspoken "I saved your life" episode in their past.

If slave ownership was truly sinful one would expect Paul to say so in no uncertain terms. I would argue that Paul would be remiss for not being perfectly clear. One could almost imagine Philemon standing before God in judgement and saying, "But Paul never once told me that it was wrong!" Christian behavior would demand that Philemon immediately repent of the sin of owning slaves and free not only Onesimus but all other slaves he might currently own. Instead, freeing Onesimus was presented as an optional thing that would be little more than a favor to Paul.

I have yet to see any passage of scripture in the Bible that, when directly addressing the subject of slave ownership, clearly identifies it as a sin. But there are several passages in the Bible that specify how ownership of slaves is to be regulated.

I agree that "love thy neighbor" is inconsistent with ownership of slaves. But compartmentalization is a powerful thing. After all, the words "All men are created equal" in the Declaration of Independence was written and signed largely by slave owners.

 

[Politesse]

Arguing that "love one another" and "love thy neighbor" is a prohibition against slavery is quite hollow considering the fact that these words were written and repeated in the midst of a society rampant with slaves and that nobody gave any indication they had a problem reconciling the two.

No one has at any point in this thread denied that slavers exist. They do, and did at the time the Bible was written. It is not an intentionally abolitionist document and never was. It is unlikely that its many authors even agreed with each other, let alone modern readers, on this point.

My point is that they are wrong to do what they do, and atheists should not ally themselves with them in interpreting Scripture. Read clearly, it's most important theses are not consistent with the practice of slavery, and those who worship the Bible should be held to its highest standards, not to the spaces between its most wicked verses. Employing the exact same hermeneutic as immoral morons is nothing for a supposed skeptic to aspire to. What you must do to disprove my point is to prove that enslaving another person is logically and morally consistent with loving them as you do yourself. Can you? If not, then you should press Christians to live up to the best virtues of their tradition, not the fetishize the worst manifestations of their history.

 

[Rhea]

My point is that they are wrong to do what they do, and atheists should not ally themselves with them in interpreting Scripture.

And our point is that you are compartmentalising. We are not “allying ourselves”, that’s your little othering.

Your book says a thing.
Says it plain and loud.
Your fellow religionists used that book to justify their bad behavior.
YOU do nothing to stop the power of the book. You let it stand. So that as soon as they leave your presence the book - a MUCH MORE powerful voice than yours, STILL says what it said.

Your attempt to claim we are the bad guys for pointing out that your book contains evil depends on all the other religionists suddenly forgetting what they’ve spent their lives knowing.


Your insistence that the book should always contain those words because no one notices them until we point them out and somehow bring them into existence is what is actually enabling.

You keep saying this same phrase, that somehow by pointing out what your book says, *WE* are the ones causing the problem of what the book says.

No. We are pointing out TO YOU how your book foments evil acts.
You saying, “Shhh! No it doesn’t! Shhhh! They won’t see that” just insanely ignores all the people who have, did and are acting on those evil passages.

Read clearly, it's most important theses are not consistent with the practice of slavery, and those who worship the Bible should be held to its highest standards, not to the spaces between its most wicked verses.

It shouldn’t have any wicked verses. Holy crap.

Employing the exact same hermeneutic as immoral morons is nothing for a supposed skeptic to aspire to. What you must do to disprove my point is to prove that enslaving another person is logically and morally consistent with loving them as you do yourself.

No all we have to do - and we have - is show that the existence of wicked verses allows Christians to cherry pick, and renders the whole book less than useless. It breeds evil. And you say, “well not if you cherry pick!” And you think that’s a good arguument.

“Cherry pick!”
“No, not that cherry!”

Can you? If not, then you should press Christians to live up to the best virtues of their tradition, not the fetishize the worst manifestations of their history.

You keep defending this. No what we should “really do” is tell them to be good people and discard the piece of trash that was giving them permission to be otherwise

We are not allying with the evil religionists. We are not fetishizing their evil, we are witnessing it. We are calling it by name.
You are trying to sweep it under the rug.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Agree with Rhea above. The horse Politesse is sitting on is getting higher every post. To point out that slavers had a good argument to make from Exodus, etc. is to say this -- and this only: morally disordered persons found justification in a morally disordered book.

We could have much the same discussion on the Bible's (and God's) justifications for genocide.

 

[DBT]

The bible may talk of love, but it does not explicitly condemn slavery.

 

[atrib]

Arguing that "love one another" and "love thy neighbor" is a prohibition against slavery is quite hollow considering the fact that these words were written and repeated in the midst of a society rampant with slaves and that nobody gave any indication they had a problem reconciling the two.

No one has at any point in this thread denied that slavers exist. They do, and did at the time the Bible was written. It is not an intentionally abolitionist document and never was. It is unlikely that its many authors even agreed with each other, let alone modern readers, on this point.

My point is that they are wrong to do what they do, and atheists should not ally themselves with them in interpreting Scripture. Read clearly, it's most important theses are not consistent with the practice of slavery, and those who worship the Bible should be held to its highest standards, not to the spaces between its most wicked verses. Employing the exact same hermeneutic as immoral morons is nothing for a supposed skeptic to aspire to. What you must do to disprove my point is to prove that enslaving another person is logically and morally consistent with loving them as you do yourself. Can you? If not, then you should press Christians to live up to the best virtues of their tradition, not the fetishize the worst manifestations of their history.

The Bible's most important thesis is that humans are born flawed sinners, and they deserve to suffer and die, and our shameful, flawed souls can only be redeemed through the blood sacrifice of an innocent and our humble submission to the creator that made us. That is the core of the Christian faith; everything else is window dressing.

I have a fundamental disagreement with this thesis. I recognize humans for what we are, the product of undirected evolution, carrying baggage left over from our ancestors. We are not the sinners the Bible accuses us of being, and we have nothing to be ashamed of; in fact, I would argue that we have taken great steps to get to where we are today, and that we should be proud of what we have accomplished. We don't need to read the Bible to know about loving our neighbors; that is ingrained in our nervous system and taught to us by our parents and mentors. We don't need to read the Bible to figure out that slavery is wrong; we have managed to figure it out on our own without any help from the book that instructs us on the proper way to beat our slaves.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Read clearly, it's most important theses are not consistent with the practice of slavery, and those who worship the Bible should be held to its highest standards, not to the spaces between its most wicked verses.

Read clearly, the Bible is contradictory. Which theses are the most important raise the question: "Most important to whom?" Surely, the authors of the part of the Bible that supported all sorts of atrocities considered their writing important, and likely no less than the authors of other parts considered their own writings important.


In arguing against a claim - for example - that the Bible is a good guide to morality, or that the biblical creator is morally perfect, etc., it is proper to point out that the Bible supports the death penalty by stoning against people who did nothing wrong, as well as rape, murder, and other things like that. Personally I would not focus on slavery simply because there are even more clear-cut examples of support for atrocities. But nothing wrong with using slavery too. That is a way of arguing against Christianity, in any of its usual forms, which of course maintain that the biblical creator - as described in the Bible - is morally good and even morally perfect, and that the Bible is a good guide to moral truth, and so on. One does not need to argue against the parts you prefer for that purpose. Even if Saddam Hussein did some good things, one can show he was a bad person by pointing to the horrific things he also did. The same for the biblical creator. It's not even require that one talks about "love thy neighbor as yourself", as the Bible supports horrific things.


Having said that,

"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ No other commandment is greater than these.

Those of course are much lesser evils. But they are still evils. No, the person who does not love her neighbor as much as she loves herself does not behave immorally. Rather, she is being human. And in plenty of cases, she should not love her neightbor at all - with a sufficiently evil neighbor, for example.

The command to "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength" is also a command to do something not morally obligatory (but Jesus implies it is), but also unethical. Remember, Jesus was talking about the God of the Bible. His audience read the atrocities of the Biblical creator. And he is telling them they have an obligation to love him with all their minds, souls, etc. Jesus is mistaken. They have no such obligation. And even if they hadn't read his commands, they would have no such obligation.


So, the Bible contains massive moral errors, and minor moral errors too. No need to pick the latter.

 

[Politesse]

we have managed to figure it out on our own without any help from the book that instructs us on the proper way to beat our slaves.

Who is "we"? Do you know anything about the history of abolition?

 

[Politesse]

Agree with Rhea above. The horse Politesse is sitting on is getting higher every post. To point out that slavers had a good argument to make from Exodus, etc. is to say this -- and this only: morally disordered persons found justification in a morally disordered book.

We could have much the same discussion on the Bible's (and God's) justifications for genocide.

Anti slavery is a "high horse" I am more than willing to ride. I also strongly oppose genocide.

 

[Politesse]

Read clearly, it's most important theses are not consistent with the practice of slavery, and those who worship the Bible should be held to its highest standards, not to the spaces between its most wicked verses.

Read clearly, the Bible is contradictory. Which theses are the most important raise the question: "Most important to whom?" Surely, the authors of the part of the Bible that supported all sorts of atrocities considered their writing important, and likely no less than the authors of other parts considered their own writings important.


In arguing against a claim - for example - that the Bible is a good guide to morality, or that the biblical creator is morally perfect, etc., it is proper to point out that the Bible supports the death penalty by stoning against people who did nothing wrong, as well as rape, murder, and other things like that. Personally I would not focus on slavery simply because there are even more clear-cut examples of support for atrocities. But nothing wrong with using slavery too. That is a way of arguing against Christianity, in any of its usual forms, which of course maintain that the biblical creator - as described in the Bible - is morally good and even morally perfect, and that the Bible is a good guide to moral truth, and so on. One does not need to argue against the parts you prefer for that purpose. Even if Saddam Hussein did some good things, one can show he was a bad person by pointing to the horrific things he also did. The same for the biblical creator. It's not even require that one talks about "love thy neighbor as yourself", as the Bible supports horrific things.


Having said that,

"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ No other commandment is greater than these.

Those of course are much lesser evils. But they are still evils. No, the person who does not love her neighbor as much as she loves herself does not behave immorally. Rather, she is being human. And in plenty of cases, she should not love her neightbor at all - with a sufficiently evil neighbor, for example.

The command to "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength" is also a command to do something not morally obligatory (but Jesus implies it is), but also unethical. Remember, Jesus was talking about the God of the Bible. His audience read the atrocities of the Biblical creator. And he is telling them they have an obligation to love him with all their minds, souls, etc. Jesus is mistaken. They have no such obligation. And even if they hadn't read his commands, they would have no such obligation.


So, the Bible contains massive moral errors, and minor moral errors too. No need to pick the latter.

I'm not making any of those arguments. I am arguing that using the Bible to support pro-slavery arguments is illogical and morally corrupt. I have no interest whatsoever in polemically attacking or defending conservative Christianity.

There's a concerted effort on the part of several to paint me into their imagined version of a Christian evangelist, but I am not particularly concerned about whether or not someone likes the Bible, provided they aren't using it to hurt people. If we were discussing the Holy Qur'an, I would be making essentially the same argument, that slavery is inconsistent with its core values and that it is wrong to interpret it as a pro-slavery document, even though its history and implications are similar to those of Hebrew Scriptures in many respects. None of the above make slavery morally permissible. If humanist principles are sufficient for you to oppose slavery as well without any recourse to relgiious writings of any kind, great. I'm happy. But if that is the case, stop parroting pro-slavery arguments as though they were definitive and unhypocritical representations of the Bible's message. They aren't, and you are doing much more harm than good.