The Bible And Slavery

[Politesse]

I wonder why you would make such a blatantly uninformed assertion. Perhaps it’s because you care deeply about the subject. But why would that cause you to make up stories about other people? Strange.

Denying that slavery even occurs indicates that the slaves themselves are below consideration. Unpaid labor plays a significant enough role in the global economy, that genuine ignorance of its existence is not plausible. You say that I am making a false accusation, yet he casually dismisses slave labor in prisons in his very next post, as though it mattered not one whit that thousands are laboring for no pay or cents on the hour to produce the material bounty of the world he lives in, since it is not chattel slavery (And I would strongly dispute even that point where for-profit prisons are concerned).

Then there's the multiple times in this thread that people have accused me of "not understanding the point of the thread" because I keep focusing on the fight against slavery rather than the fight against the Bible. And how casually people keep throwing out (and not actually bothering to critique) theological arguments for slavery, such as the belief that treating a slave "kindly" constitutes loving them as oneself. If you valued people first and foremost, you would feel compelled to point out that this is wrong. But multiple times, a pro-slavery argument has been made and simply left to stand, as though it were self-evidently true rather than logically unsound and morally reprehensible, because doing so strengthens the intended polemic argument the author is making against the Bible.

If critiquing a book is "the real issue" and human lives are not, that implies that the lives of the people are less important than the relgious dispute you are waging. You are treating the sorry condition of the slave as ammunition for your religious crusade, rather than treating their liberation as an end in itself.

 

[Rhea]

Sounds as though you’d lik to start a thread about slavery in the politics forum.

This one is about religion.

Your topic is an ineresting one, and valid. But you don’t want it to be about religion.... in the religion forum. Sooooo.....

 

[Politesse]

Sounds as though you’d lik to start a thread about slavery in the politics forum.

This one is about religion.

Your topic is an ineresting one, and valid. But you don’t want it to be about religion.... in the religion forum. Sooooo.....

It is, obviously, also about religion, since you are consciously using bad theology to make your point.

If bad theology didn't hurt people, it would just be a dubious personal hobby. But if it does, that makes it a troubling aspect ot religion that should concern all of us greatly.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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.

You made claims to which I replied. But now that you mention this, there is a very big difference between using the Bible "to support pro-slavery arguments" in the sense of arguing that because the Bible says such-and-such, then slavery is not immoral, justified, etc., and arguing that the Bible supports slavery as a means of arguing against the claims that the Bible is a good guide to moral truth, the word of a morally perfect creator, and so on.

As I said, I have focused mostly on other atrocities, for example pointing out how the Bible supports stoning a woman to death for having consensual sex before being handed over to the man chosen by her father as a husband, or calls for the mass murder of populations of entire cities, hacking and slicing children, and so on. But then again, sometimes it also goes for killing the men, and raping and/or enslaving the women, etc. But that's not using the Bible to support pro-stoning to death for doing nothing wrong, etc., arguments; rather, that is using the Bible against the Bible; i.e., against the claims that the Bible is a good guide to moral truth, the word of a morally perfect creator, and so on.

You even say:

You're letting your religious apologetics get in the way of your social and moral responsibilities. Killing Christianity is not more important than saving people.

You seem to be suggesting that there is a moral obligation not to argue against Christianity - or is it against doing so by pointing that the Bible supports atrocities?

That "more important" is not like "more important to me", but rather, you're saying it's morally more important. But even granting that it is more important for the sake of the argument (It's ambiguous, as one could ask who's being saved? How? And how many would be saved without Christianity? etc), there are plenty of morally good - i.e., praiseworthy - causes, some better than others. Yet, there is a big difference between a supererogatory and an obligatory behavior.

I might as well mirror that claim and tell you that saving people is more important than defending Christianity against arguments made by atheists, so by spending your time doing apologetics you're letting your religious apologetics get in your way of your moral responsibility.

 

[Rhea]

Sounds as though you’d lik to start a thread about slavery in the politics forum.

This one is about religion.

Your topic is an ineresting one, and valid. But you don’t want it to be about religion.... in the religion forum. Sooooo.....

It is, obviously, also about religion, since you are consciously using bad theology to make your point.

If bad theology didn't hurt people, it would just be a dubious personal hobby. But if it does, that makes it a troubling aspect ot religion that should concern all of us greatly.

I am conscioustly witnessing the theology that people who think they are devout are using.

All theology is bad, when you examine it.

 

[Rhea]

It’s as if the government chose to add an anti-prohibition amendment instead of repealing the prohibition amendment, and then arguing that the existence of two conflicting amendments cause no trouble, and then further arguing that anyone reading the first amendment, but not the other one is a bad scholar, when you are areguing for one and not the other.


Not a perfect metaphor, but my point is that if there were a god (jesus) who really wanted to stop all slavery, including modern slavery, in other words if the boble could or should be used to stop slavery, they would have written it in a way that is utterly unambiguous and stops penal slavery and wage slavery as well as chattel slavery.

The bible is useless as a tool to stop slavery (obviosly, at this point, right?)
And trying to brush parts of the bible under the rug to use other parts of the bible to stop slavery will always leave the seed of theological support for slavery right there in the community - forever - because the bible says what it says.

We are pointing out that the seed is harmful and durable and you’re telling us we are horrible people for pointing that out.
History seems to support our view of human behavior more than your view of new testament strength.

 

[Politesse]

I might as well mirror that claim and tell you that saving people is more important than defending Christianity against arguments made by atheists, so by spending your time doing apologetics you're letting your religious apologetics get in your way of your moral responsibility.

I agree with that. If you think I am not capable of making an argument against Christianity, you definitely do not understand the principal argument I've been making in this thread. I do not and have never given a fuck what people believe in the broad sense of what religious identity they claim or declaim. A person's conduct, their choices, their brilliance or irrationality, those matter to me. Definitely, their kindness or their cruelty to others. Worship a flying spaghetti monster or a chopped salad if you like, but don't expect me to give you a pass on moral responsibility or critical thinking because of your chosen label.

 

[Politesse]

We are pointing out that the seed is harmful and durable and you’re telling us we are horrible people for pointing that out.
History seems to support our view of human behavior more than your view of new testament strength.

That makes no sense whatsoever. If I thought people were inherently kind and loving, why would I bother advocating for abolition at all?

The bible is useless as a tool to stop slavery (obviosly, at this point, right?)
And trying to brush parts of the bible under the rug to use other parts of the bible to stop slavery will always leave the seed of theological support for slavery right there in the community - forever - because the bible says what it says.

I've not "brushed" anything "under the rug". The only people in this thread trying to deny that parts of the Bible exist or are relevant are the pro-slavery crowd. I have acknowledged the pro-slavery wham verses over and over in this thread. What I do think is that it is irresponsible to use them to support the practice without admitting that slavery also, on a very obvious and fundamental level, conflicts with the values expressed in the more sane corners of the anthology.

Why do you people continue to believe, after years of knowing me and never having actually been "evangelized" at, that I am some sort of proselytizer? The accusation is really starting to annoy me. You are constantly trying to convert other people to your point of view. I am not. I've never been so blinkeredly rude in my entire life as to demand that someone change their faith identity on my say-so. Believe me, I do not want you to become a Christian. Under any circumstances. Because that would obviously be a fucking disaster. Given your stated perspectives on Scripture, you would clearly become a serious danger to yourself and others were you ever to find religion, and we are blessed that you found your way out somehow, even if you didn't quite make it all the way.

 

[Rhea]

” the pro-slavery crowd.”

The hyperbole in this straw man really harms your crdibility in this discussion. This is absurd and cartoonish.

I have acknowledged the pro-slavery wham verses over and over in this thread. What I do think is that it is irresponsible to use them to support the practice without admitting that slavery also, on a very obvious and fundamental level, conflicts with the values expressed in the more sane corners of the anthology.

Everyone here has said that it conflicts.

Why do you people continue to believe, after years of knowing me and never having actually been "evangelized" at, that I am some sort of proselytizer?

Not saying you are. Not sure why you would say this.

The accusation is really starting to annoy me. You are constantly trying to convert other people to your point of view. I am not.

Really? You said up-thread that is exactly what you do to other christians who believe differently than you, and that you succeed and you make a difference.

I've never been so blinkeredly rude in my entire life as to demand that someone change their faith identity on my say-so.

A) yes you did say this up thread
B) This forum is a place to discuss exactly that... sooooo...

Believe me, I do not want you to become a Christian. Under any circumstances. Because that would obviously be a fucking disaster. Given your stated perspectives on Scripture, you would clearly become a serious danger to yourself and others

This is an interesting statement. An admission that “Scripture” enables this.

Which
Is
My entire
Point.

 

[abaddon]

Why do you people continue to believe, after years of knowing me and never having actually been "evangelized" at, that I am some sort of proselytizer?

You're not proselytizing but you make emotion-based arguments instead of using logic, regardless if it looks like solid logic to you.

You're trying to contrive a moral dilemma for atheists. They're "supporting" a "pro-slavery" inerrantist reading of the Bible by not encouraging more Christians to value the Bible that way that YOU value it. Apparently, to be more moral persons, everyone should focus on the good messages in the Bible instead of ugly ones. So atheists seem fundy-esque and immoral to you for arguing "the Bible endorses slavery".

Even though that's not the argument. Your moralizing involves a gross misrepresentation here. "The Bible endorses slavery" is only a premise within a larger argument, but you falsely present it as the argument. This misrepresentation serves as a prop to the moral dilemma: either support the goodness that's there in the Bible or else you support the badness and therefore are being immoral.

It's a contrived, manipulative argument; more sophistic looking than you seem aware of.

 

[Politesse]

yes you did say this up thread

Nonsense.

This is an interesting statement. An admission that “Scripture” enables this.

Which
Is
My entire
Point.

Then you should be able to make it without endorsing pro-slavery arguments.

 

[skepticalbip]

yes you did say this up thread

Nonsense.

This is an interesting statement. An admission that “Scripture” enables this.

Which
Is
My entire
Point.

Then you should be able to make it without endorsing pro-slavery arguments.

I have seen no one endorse slavery or pro-slavery arguments. Possibly you have some serious reading comprehension problems... you should work on solving that. What I have seen is people criticizing the Bible for its open acceptance of slavery.

 

[Jarhyn]

yes you did say this up thread

Nonsense.

This is an interesting statement. An admission that “Scripture” enables this.

Which
Is
My entire
Point.

Then make it without endorsing pro-slavery arguments

Like, I think you are being a bit too edged here.

"Scripture, through its ambiguities, lends itself to arguments pro slavery".

The only way to validate this fact, and use it to impugn scripture as a vessel only of suspect truths, and dubious wisdom is to actually spell out the ambiguities and this, to you, would be indistinguishable from "making pro slavery arguments from scripture".

It IS good to pose these in counterpoint using the newer works of John to counter those views, but even that ignores later works of Paul which are again ambiguous.

So, I thank you, Politesse, for making the point that maybe a more productive activity would be to show how the newer principles are at odds with slavery, and that is an appreciated goal...

But we also need to appreciate the strongest forms of argument that this is to counter.

 

[Jarhyn]

Nonsense.

Then you should be able to make it without endorsing pro-slavery arguments.

I have seen no one endorse slavery. Possibly you have some serious reading comprehension problems... you should work on solving that. What I have seen is people criticizing the Bible for its open acceptance of slavery.

I can actually see where Politesse has a point. You are putting together a strong biblical argument pro slavery. All someone needs to do to get from the posts hilighting this fact to a sermon is to replace the conclusion message "and so the bible is wrong", with "and as we all know the Bible is the word of God!"

I just don't think as Politesse does that this is necessarily a bad thing. But it's one that needs a strong message such as Politesse points out: you only get halfway there.

 

[Politesse]

So it's sophistry that is the problem in your arguments.

And yet, you make personal attacks rather than disputing my actual claim. Shouldn't it be easy to refute, if it has no substance? I assure you, this line of attack is doing nothing to change my mind; I would be vastly more interested in a rational argument.

You're trying to contrive a moral dilemma for atheists.

No, for anyone who makes the same stupid and dangerous claims. There are plenty of perfectly sensible atheists in this thread alone who do not insist that God has endorsed slavery, and perhaps one and a half Christians who have tacitly done so. Really, the thread didn't start to fall apart (in my opinion) until atrib entered the conversation and started making very extreme claims about what the Bible supported.

They're "supporting" a "pro-slavery" inerrantist reading of the Bible by not encouraging more Christians to value the Bible that way that YOU value it.

It's not just about values, their reading is indeed immoral but it is also blatantly illogical and inconsistent. You are not truly an "inerrantist" if you only consider the most vicious parts of the Bible to be literally true and binding, while ignoring its own stated moral principles.

Apparently, to be more moral persons, everyone should focus on the good messages in the Bible instead of ugly ones.

How else could one possibly be a moral person than to embrace the good and reject the bad, regardless of topic?

So atheists seem fundy-esque and immoral to you for arguing "the Bible endorses slavery".

Repeating fundy arguments word for word is "fundy-esque", yeah. What else could it be? Liberal-esque? Progressive-esque? Coptic Orthodox-esque?

"The Bible endorses slavery" is only a premise within a larger argument, but you falsely say it's the argument.

I'm fully aware of the larger intended conclusion, but that isn't the part I object to, so it's not the part I'm writing against. Are you suggesting than in evaluating an argument, the correctness of its premises should not be a concern? Of course I'm questioning the bloody premise, it's a flawed premise.

This misrepresentation serves as a prop to the moral dilemma: either support the goodness that's there in the Bible or else you support the badness and therefore are being immoral.

I'm not asking anyone to "support the goodness", just stop endorsing the badness.

It's a contrived, manipulative argument; more sophistic looking than you seem aware of.

Absent all the extra baggage you're heaping on it, my point is pretty straightforward. Teaching that "the Bible endorses slavery" is wrong - such a view is not logically consistent with the collection as a whole, even if it seems implied by certain sections - and uncritically repeating that is lending support to those who justify mistreatment of slaves by also claiming that "the Bible endorses slavery". If you want to attack the Bible, there are better ways of doing so than lending unearned support to the most wicked of theological projects.

 

[Politesse]

Nonsense.

Then you should be able to make it without endorsing pro-slavery arguments.

I have seen no one endorse slavery or pro-slavery arguments. Possibly you have some serious reading comprehension problems... you should work on solving that. What I have seen is people criticizing the Bible for its open acceptance of slavery.

You yourself made a very common pro-slavery argument in your second post in the thread (the counter-factual claim that all ancient peoples employed the practice of slavery). While you may not have meant to, repeating propaganda without challenging its inaccuracy is, functionally, supporting it. That one wasn't even a religious argument, just a lie told by orthodox historians for centuries. I suspect you believed it was true when you wrote it. But that doesn't change the social impact of repeating old memes unchallenged by reason. When the topic is slavery, repeating things uncritically is in and of itself a major threat to human wellbeing, regardless of your felt intentions.

 

[skepticalbip]

Nonsense.

Then you should be able to make it without endorsing pro-slavery arguments.

I have seen no one endorse slavery. Possibly you have some serious reading comprehension problems... you should work on solving that. What I have seen is people criticizing the Bible for its open acceptance of slavery.

I can actually see where Politesse has a point. You are putting together a strong biblical argument pro slavery. All someone needs to do to get from the posts hilighting this fact to a sermon is to replace the conclusion message "and so the bible is wrong", with "and as we all know the Bible is the word of God!"

That seems to be to be the over riding argument. Is the Bible the "word of God" that gives us a moral code to live by?

The con side is that the Bible is filled with and accepts some of the most heinous attributes of humanity, slavery was just selected as one example. If it is assumed to be the 'word of God' then that god is as fallible, evil, and as good as the average human so shouldn't be relied on as a moral guide. The Bible should be seen simply as writings that reflect the culture and times when the books were written, some should be condemned.

Those who do accept the Bible as the inerrant "word of God" are already aware of the accepted atrocities in the Bible. Possibly some would repeat some of them if secular society had not condemned and outlawed such practices.

 

[Rhea]

And I have had many conversations with people - yes, even "conservatives" - that ended with them admitting to the evils of practices they would have endorsed at the beginning of the conversation. So what good have you done lately? How many "converts" to your religious beliefs have you notched on your belt? And why should I see that as more important than actually challenging evil social practices?

Here is you claiming converts based on your evangelism of your version of christianity. Just pointing out what I meant when I claimed you said this up-thread.

 

[Jarhyn]

I can actually see where Politesse has a point. You are putting together a strong biblical argument pro slavery. All someone needs to do to get from the posts hilighting this fact to a sermon is to replace the conclusion message "and so the bible is wrong", with "and as we all know the Bible is the word of God!"

That seems to be to be the over riding argument. Is the Bible the "word of God" that gives us a moral code to live by?

The con side is that the Bible is filled with and accepts some of the most heinous attributes of humanity, slavery was just selected as one example. If it is assumed to be the 'word of God' then that god is as fallible, evil, and as good as the average human so shouldn't be relied on as a moral guide. The Bible should be seen simply as writings that reflect the culture and times when the books were written, some should be condemned.

Those who do accept the Bible as the inerrant "word of God" are already aware of the accepted atrocities in the Bible. Possibly some would repeat some of them if secular society had not condemned and outlawed such practices.

The thing is, this leads into Politesse's point. While they are probably already dimly aware of how attrocious the OT is, there are some messages that are equally biblical that stand in counterpoint that can and should be more at the top of your mind to temper the believer's belief. Because, the idea that atheists can debate christians away from Christianity is a myth - the only person who can navigate these people out of the cave is themselves.

A rational person accepts that there are people he cannot reach rationally, and so you have to take another path. Putting yourself on opposite sides of a battle line (bible is ambiguously pro-slavery, so bible is wrong and Christianity is stupid) will remove from you the power to do even that much.

 

[Lion IRC]

Thread Summary

Politesse
Slavery is bad. Really bad. So, so bad! Atheist counter apologists shouldn't make (spurious) claims that the bible 'endorses' slavery because a) it doesn't and b) if the atheists are correct, the Ku Klux Clan and Westboro Baptists might become even more convinced that God wants the descendants of Ham in chains. And that would be horrible if SCOTUS ruled that keeping slaves was consistent with freedom of religion. (A very real possibility if atheists keep on saying that "the bible approves of slavery".) Also, the bible is written by humans whose thinking about God(s) is typically fallable. Maybe God doesn't love slavery but He has been misrepresented by the pro-slavery crowd.

Lion IRC
The bible doesn't support, endorse, approve, encourage, turn a blind eye, give slavery a hall pass... Quite the opposite. And because the bible is God's Word, biblical theists will readily agree with its numerous, unambiguous, righteous condemnations of this immoral and undesirable institution.

Atheist Gotcha Gamers
The bible is bad. Really bad. So, so very bad. Atheists know the bible better than anyone. Christians are immoral hypocrites who secretly agree that their embarrassing, shameful bible actually does support literal slavery, but they ignore that super clear, explicit, unmistakable biblical imprimatur and pretend that they believe slavery is not nice. Or that the Old Testament doesn't apply any more. Or that the bible was mistranslated somewhere along the way and....illiterate bronze age goat herders etc etc. Checkmate all you slavery loving Christians who can't have it both ways - either God approves of slavery or the bible is a man made book of lies.