The Bible And Slavery

[bilby]

It is spelled out in each of the Gospels that the only way to heaven is through acceptance of Jesus.

"Spelled out" usually means it is written down somewhere in plain English, or in this case, plain Greek. I'm aware of the wham texts that are used to justify that doctrine, but it is not stated explicitly, they have to make quite a mush of the text to get to it, and as always ignore quite a lot of the rest in order to keep it. Doubly true of the Synoptics, since you specifically claim gospel synchrony here. John's gospel talks a fair bit more about Hell, but when it comes up in the others, it is always in the context of the powerful abusing the poor, and eventually getting their comeuppance. A very different path to perdition than you are suggesting here.

If the Bible's message is so plain, clear, and obvious, why are there so many thousands of different denominations, many of whom believe flatly contradictory things, but most of which claim to be following the plain and obvious truths of the Good Book? Do you really and honestly believe that fundamentalist Protestants are the only people in the history of the world who ever learned to read a book and understand its central message? Because I have some bad news for you about the general nature of the correlation between religious fundamentalism and literacy.

I agree entirely.

The Bible is completely useless as a guide to, well, anything.

It contains enough ambiguity to justify pretty much anything; And as a result, it cannot be a guide as to what should or shouldn't be done. If you want to keep slaves, the Bible is 'clearly' able to support that. If you want to abolish slavery, the Bible is equally 'clearly' able to support that, too.

There's nothing you justify with the Bible that you couldn't justify just as well without it. Except to use as a post hoc justification for whatever you have already decided is morally right.

 

[Politesse]

If the rich are said to be in that position by the will of God, as are Rulers and Governors, why should the rich get their comeuppance for fulfilling what is essentially the will of God?

Why, indeed? Shall we examine your premises again?

 

[Politesse]

It is spelled out in each of the Gospels that the only way to heaven is through acceptance of Jesus.

"Spelled out" usually means it is written down somewhere in plain English, or in this case, plain Greek. I'm aware of the wham texts that are used to justify that doctrine, but it is not stated explicitly, they have to make quite a mush of the text to get to it, and as always ignore quite a lot of the rest in order to keep it. Doubly true of the Synoptics, since you specifically claim gospel synchrony here. John's gospel talks a fair bit more about Hell, but when it comes up in the others, it is always in the context of the powerful abusing the poor, and eventually getting their comeuppance. A very different path to perdition than you are suggesting here.

If the Bible's message is so plain, clear, and obvious, why are there so many thousands of different denominations, many of whom believe flatly contradictory things, but most of which claim to be following the plain and obvious truths of the Good Book? Do you really and honestly believe that fundamentalist Protestants are the only people in the history of the world who ever learned to read a book and understand its central message? Because I have some bad news for you about the general nature of the correlation between religious fundamentalism and literacy.

I agree entirely.

The Bible is completely useless as a guide to, well, anything.

It contains enough ambiguity to justify pretty much anything; And as a result, it cannot be a guide as to what should or shouldn't be done. If you want to keep slaves, the Bible is 'clearly' able to support that. If you want to abolish slavery, the Bible is equally 'clearly' able to support that, too.

There's nothing you justify with the Bible that you couldn't justify just as well without it. Except to use as a post hoc justification for whatever you have already decided is morally right.

I don't think it is a good idea to appoint anything or anyone as your all-purpose guide to morality; anyone who does this is making of themselves a convenient future pawn for the charismatic exploiter.

 

[DBT]

If the rich are said to be in that position by the will of God, as are Rulers and Governors, why should the rich get their comeuppance for fulfilling what is essentially the will of God?

Why, indeed? Shall we examine your premises again?

They are not my premises. It's in the bible.

 

[Politesse]

If the rich are said to be in that position by the will of God, as are Rulers and Governors, why should the rich get their comeuppance for fulfilling what is essentially the will of God?

Why, indeed? Shall we examine your premises again?

They are not my premises. It's in the bible.

That's an even worse premise!

Don't tell me what you've been told. Show me that you can rationally consider it.

 

[ruby sparks]

It is spelled out in each of the Gospels that the only way to heaven is through acceptance of Jesus. No where in the Bible have I seen that being nice to and loving each other will get someone into heaven. Maybe you could direct me to that.

It seems to be 'love me or else', in both the NT and the OT, in a kind of a good cop, bad cop way. That is the whole message, apparently. The rest is commentary.

 

[ruby sparks]

The Bible is completely useless as a guide to, well, anything.

It contains enough ambiguity to justify pretty much anything; And as a result, it cannot be a guide as to what should or shouldn't be done. If you want to keep slaves, the Bible is 'clearly' able to support that. If you want to abolish slavery, the Bible is equally 'clearly' able to support that, too.

There's nothing you justify with the Bible that you couldn't justify just as well without it. Except to use as a post hoc justification for whatever you have already decided is morally right.

Well, you can also go there for prior (guiding) inspiration too, from the bits (or interpretations) you choose to heed. That's what politesse does after all, I think. And I think it's a very common approach.

 

[Politesse]

The Bible is completely useless as a guide to, well, anything.

It contains enough ambiguity to justify pretty much anything; And as a result, it cannot be a guide as to what should or shouldn't be done. If you want to keep slaves, the Bible is 'clearly' able to support that. If you want to abolish slavery, the Bible is equally 'clearly' able to support that, too.

There's nothing you justify with the Bible that you couldn't justify just as well without it. Except to use as a post hoc justification for whatever you have already decided is morally right.

Well, you can also go there for prior (guiding) inspiration too, from the bits (or interpretations) you choose to heed. That's what politesse does after all, I think. And I think it's a very common approach.

Very much so. And I think that's how one should read any book, even challenging ones.

 

[James Madison]

It is possible, back then and at that time, the understanding of “love your neighbor as yourself” was not inconsistent with slavery. Which is to say possibly the authors and many at the time were aware of slavery and “love your neighbor as yourself” but didn’t understand the meaning of “love your neighbor as yourself” to present any conflict.

Are you arguing that they were correct not do so? Yes, I know there have been slavers within the Christian fold for the entire tenure of the faith's existence, and that they all thought they were justified in their actions. I'm not claiming that "the authors" whoever you mean by that, all agreed with each other and all agreed with me. But if they don't agree with me, I think they are wrong. And I think you do, too, unless you're about to make a plea like DBT's to try and explain to me why "nice" slave owners are loving.

I know that plenty of people living today think brutal exploitation of paid workers is never a sin, for the same reasons you discuss. Even if the conditions of said employees' lives are materially worse than that of slaves, they've been raised in a capitalist society that sees labor as an inherent good and therefore themselves as inviolable despite their many cruelties. But being raised within a certain culture in no way makes someone correct in abusing their neighbor, simply because they believe they are. Nearly everyone believes that they are good, and justified in their decisions. That isn't what makes a person good.

At least, not according to Christian philosophy.

Okay, but issue is whether a specific feature, slavery, is sinful and/or immoral according to the Bible. My point is the Bible does not explicitly or tacitly render slavery as immoral or sinful. Your argument the Bible does say slavery is immoral or sinful is difficult to accept as likely for reasons I noted previously but will reiterate again below.

Are you arguing that they were correct not do so?

No. My point is the Bible doesn’t say slavery is immoral or sinful, and your argument the Bible does is difficult given the facts and arguments based on those facts.

Yes, I know there have been slavers within the Christian fold for the entire tenure of the faith's existence

I’m not referring to only Christians. The law went to the Jews. “Love thy neighbor as thyself” appeared in Leviticus, but likely preceded as an oral rule among the Jews and nation of Israel long before it made it to print. The same law included “love thy neighbor as thyself” but the law was not forbidding slavery, as the law acknowledged slavery’s existence and regulated it. They practiced slavery at the time. They didn’t understand the “love thy neighbor as thyself” to have the same moral import as you, of being inconsistent with slavery. This extended into the NT. Jesus wasn’t pronouncing a new concept when he love thy neighbor as thyself was discussed. Yet, the NT has no explicit condemnation of slavery and Jesus didn’t condemn the OT laws regarding slavery, and neither did Paul.

I'm not claiming that "the authors" whoever you mean by that

It means “whoever you mean” when you used the word “authors” in a prior post. “[T]o many of the Bible's authors,...”

But if they don't agree with me, I think they are wrong.

An unequivocal point you’ve made in this thread. My focus has been upon your argument as to how and why you think “they are wrong.” You made the argument they are “wrong” because, inter alia, 1.) love your neighbor as yourself is inconsistent with slavery and 2.) the authors were remiss to not recognize what you claim is the moral reach of “love thy neighbor as thyself.”

As I said before, you merely claim “love thy neighbor as thyself” is morally inconsistent with slavery. Your evidence? Not much more than you say so, but with a reasoned argument. Your reasoned argument, however, doesn’t convincingly, for me anyway, explain away the laws regarding slavery.

The counter evidence? The fact slavery doesn’t make the naughty list in the OT or NT, and slavery co-existed with “love thy neighbor as thyself.” The purpose of the law, inter alia, and some of its unique, some say bizarre features, was to set the Jews apart from the godless heathens in their neighborhood. They were to be an example to the godless heathens in their neighborhood. They were inculcated from birth to know the law and follow the law. “'So you shall keep My statutes and My judgments, by which a man may live if he does them; I am the LORD.” They followed the laws for cleansing, offering, Passover, feasts, festivals, fabrics woven into clothing, harvesting crops, etcetera.

Of course, they lived under the threat of disobedience to the law risked a forced vacation in foreign lands. It isn’t likely such a people, Jews, obsessed with regulating so much of their own lives, right down to forbidding the mixture of fabric for clothing, regulating their lives and behaviors, likely missed what you say is the moral reach of “love thy neighbor as thyself” in regards to slavery.

Rather, they didn’t share your view of love thy neighbor as thyself, which explains why slavery co-existed with “love thy neighbor as thyself” and explains why slavery didn’t make their exhaustive naughty list. Your moral interpretation of love thy neighbor as thyself wasn’t their interpretation and wasn’t the meaning of the phrase back then.

All of which shows “love thy neighbor as thyself” in the Bible likely did not back then have or connote the moral meaning you attach to it today.

And I think you do, too, unless you're about to make a plea like DBT's to try and explain to me why "nice" slave owners are loving.

You do realize one need not resort to DBT’s argument?

The Bible does not comment as immoral some of the practices that existed back then, have persisted in some form today, whereas today we consider those practices as immoral. Gender inequality existed way back then, but the Bible does not say it is immoral. Equal pay, wage labor, labor conditions, are touched upon as immoral in the Bible. Having more than one wife wasn’t explicitly or tacitly forbidden in the OT or NT. Some practices were allowed but not preferred, like divorce.

There’s nothing in the Bible prohibiting a people, society, or nation from codifying slavery as illegal and forbidden.

I do believe slavery to be immoral but I’m not relying on the Bible to make this claim. The Bible doesn’t say slavery is immoral.

 

[Politesse]

As I said before, you merely claim “love thy neighbor as thyself” is morally inconsistent with slavery. Your evidence? Not much more than you say so, but with a reasoned argument. Your reasoned argument, however, doesn’t convincingly, for me anyway, explain away the laws regarding slavery.

Love is not consistent with slavery, because in slavery you harm others for your personal gain. One cannot love one's neighbor as oneself and also desire to keep a slave, because no one would desire voluntarily to be made a slave if they had another option, for love of themselves and their own worth and freedom.

Tell me, if you yourself were in a condition of involuntary servitude, would you feel that your master loved you as she loves herself? Why or why not?

I don't think the laws that support slavery should be explained away, rather, I think they should be confronted as directly and consistently as possible. And that includes challenging bad theology.when we find it.

It isn’t likely such a people, Jews, obsessed with regulating so much of the people’s lives, right down to forbidding the mixture of fabric for clothing, regulating their lives and behaviors, likely missed what you say is the moral reach of “love thy neighbor as thyself” in regards to slavery.

Some did, some didn't. When the world matured to the point that a debate over abolition was possible, many Jews were instrumental in that movement, such as Ernestine Rose and David Einhorn. They saw the same contradiction as I do myself, and if you'd like to have a discussion of the inconsistencies in just the Hebrew Scriptures on this question we can. It is not only Christian tradition that forbids slavery when you really think its principles through, and the arguments about literalism and obligation to the written word will make even less sense in a solely Jewish context.

The Bible does not comment as immoral some of the practices that existed back then, have persisted in some form today, whereas today we consider those practices as immoral. Gender inequality existed way back then, but the Bible does not say it is immoral. Equal pay, wage labor, labor conditions, are touched upon as immoral in the Bible. Having more than one wife wasn’t explicitly or tacitly forbidden in the OT or NT. Some practices were allowed but not preferred, like divorce.

That such things exist is not in question. Whether they are right or justifiable is another question. Just because you earnestly believe that a text justifies your way of life, doesn't mean that you are correct.

 

[ruby sparks]

Okay, but issue is whether a specific feature, slavery, is sinful and/or immoral according to the Bible. My point is the Bible does not explicitly or tacitly render slavery as immoral or sinful. Your argument the Bible does say slavery is immoral or sinful is difficult to accept as likely for reasons I noted previously but will reiterate again below.

I think Politesse accepts that parts of the bible condone slavery and other parts do not, and he prefers the latter. I'm sure he'd agree that there is no reliable way to know which if either is true, of his god's views, but you pays your money and you makes your choice.

 

[ruby sparks]

I don't think the laws that support slavery should be explained away, rather, I think they should be confronted as directly and consistently as possible.

With what though? Not the bible. It's too ambiguous and inconsistent. And we are doing The Bible And Slavery, not....anti-slavery arguments in general.

 

[Politesse]

I don't think the laws that support slavery should be explained away, rather, I think they should be confronted as directly and consistently as possible.

With what though? Not the bible. It's too ambiguous and inconsistent. And we are doing The Bible And Slavery, not....anti-slavery arguments in general.

With whatever means will do. If someone is actually using the Bible to support slavery, I will use the Bible to form my counter-argument, as they have already established that they are citing it as a moral authority. Not to the exclusion over other forms of argumentation, but I will wear away their foundation if I can. I haven't been discussing secular/atheist arguments for and against slavery because, as you say, they aren't the topic of the thread.

 

[ruby sparks]

If someone is actually using the Bible to support slavery, I will use the Bible to form my counter-argument, as they have already established that they are citing it as a moral authority. Not to the exclusion over other forms of argumentation, but I will wear away their foundation if I can.

Sure, but to try to use the bible to counter them, you'd have to say something like, 'in my personal opinion, and that of others like me, these nice, non-slavery bits are the important bits, that accurately reflect the nature of god, not the other not-so-nice bits. The guys who wrote those other bits were mistaken, in my view'. To which the question is 'how do you know?'. To which the answer is, 'it just feels like it, and I like the feeling'.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I feel as though you're inventing quite a lot of positions that I don't hold.

I am replying to what you said. If I misinterpreted some of your posts, please let me know what you mean.

They seem to center around the idea that the Biblical God cannot or should not be a legitimate object of critique.

I did not say that. Rather, I challenged your specific claims.

Are you just falling into the position of assuming that if I disagree with you on one thing, that I must disagree with you on everything?

Not at all. Rather, I am arguing against some of your specific claims.

To take your example, I see "The Bible endorses slavery" and leaving it at that, as a bit like saying "Syrians support Bashar al-Assad" and leaving it at that.

I would say that something "The Biblical god commanded that women be stoned to death for consensual sex before marriage with someone other than the husband chosen by the woman's father" is akin to "Al Assad commanded that prisoners be tortured for information", or "Thanos commanded that dissenters be executed", and so on. The comparison is not with Syrians, but between the Biblical God and Assad, Thanos, or some other villain or supervillain, real or imaginary.

As for "The Bible endorses slavery", that can be used to mirror "The orders of Al-Assad include torturing prisoners", or something like that.

Obviously true in some measure, in that a great many Syrians do, but also a factually deceptive and morally quite irresponsible argument to be making without qualification, especially if you follow it up by either disregarding (or worse, outright attacking) the subsequent evidence people would surely bring up to point out that one can be, and arguably should be, Syrians without supporting Bashar al-Assad unconditionally.

But that is not about what Syrians do, in general, but about what Assad does, or Thanos, or some other villain or supervillain, real or imaginary.

At most, its about what the writers of the Bible did - depending on how the argument is framed -, not about what Syrians do.

Or worse, screeching that any support of rebel Syrians is still support for Bashar al-Asad, since it's just encouraging people to stay and continue to fight for a free Syria, when what you want is for the rebels to emigrate to other countries, and the Syrian state itself utterly destroyed. To continue the metaphor.

That would be a good reply if the people using the atrocities of the Biblical god in their argumentation were claiming that Christians support slavery, or that they all support the Biblical God as described in the Bible. That would clearly not be true, as there are Christians who deny that the Biblical god engaged in many the actions described in the Bible, deny that slavery was commanded or even approved by God, etc. On the other hand, it is true that most Christians do claim or clearly imply that the Bible, leaving aside metaphors, is indeed a true story. And of course, they also hold or clearly imply that the law given to the Ancients Israelites is not a metaphor. In particular, this includes nearly all Catholics, by the very fact that they endorse Catholicism, which holds that the law was indeed given by God, even if it's no longer applicable. Then again, many of them are simply not aware of the atrocities described in the Bible, like some or many Assad supporters are not aware of some of his atrocities, or any of them. Pointing those atrocities to them so that they pick a side might or might not be a good strategy to persuade them, but at any rate, it's not a dishonest one. But more likely, the strategy might be of use to reduce the risk others would convert to Christianity, just as a similar strategy could be used to try to keep more people from becoming Assad supporters.

 

[DBT]

They are not my premises. It's in the bible.

That's an even worse premise!

Don't tell me what you've been told. Show me that you can rationally consider it.

You appear to say anything that suits your purpose. I do nothing more than refer to the bible and point out its contradictions. The bible provides its own premises, which are seriously flawed.

 

[Politesse]

If someone is actually using the Bible to support slavery, I will use the Bible to form my counter-argument, as they have already established that they are citing it as a moral authority. Not to the exclusion over other forms of argumentation, but I will wear away their foundation if I can.

Sure, but you can't cite particular verses of the bible to someone who is citing other bible verses. Well, you can, but they might ask you how you know the verses they are citing are wrong.

If they aren't willing to have a conversation, no one can force them to do otherwise. But I will try, and there are more reasonable people in the world than you might suppose (or the Aboltiion movement would not have had the important successes it has had already).

 

[ruby sparks]

They are not my premises. It's in the bible.

That's an even worse premise!

Don't tell me what you've been told. Show me that you can rationally consider it.

You appear to say anything that suits your purpose. I do nothing more than refer to the bible and point out its contradictions. The bible provides its own premises, which are seriously flawed.

Yes, the bible is flawed, inconsistent and unreliable. But that does not stop a person from believing, admiring and adopting those parts they like.

 

[Politesse]

You appear to say anything that suits your purpose.

Absolutely. It's a good purpose. The only logical alternative, saying things that do not suit my purpose, seems quite pointless and unpalatable to me. Do you feel otherwise?

I do nothing more than refer to the bible and point out its contradictions. The bible provides its own premises, which are seriously flawed.

If you admit that the Bible has contradictions on this issue, then pretending that it only holds the positions you disagree with and not the ones you agree with is dishonest and counter-productive, especially since it puts you in the bizarre position of defending statements you ostensibly don't agree with from attack.

And if you believe that a premise is flawed, offering it up as evidence for your own position is singularly illogical. If you think the premise is illogical, what am I to do really? Normally, in a debate, one tries to show how the premises of their interlocutor are flawed. But you admit from the get-go that the premise is flawed. You've done my job for me, so all that's left for me is to agree with you. If you think that the Bible holds inconsistent positions, but also believe that the Bible cannot contain inconsistencies, your thoughts have become paradoxically muddled and you should be seeking to determine which of your premises are in error.

 

[DBT]

You appear to say anything that suits your purpose.

Absolutely. It's a good purpose. The only logical alternative, saying things that do not suit my purpose, seems quite pointless and unpalatable to me. Do you feel otherwise?

I do nothing more than refer to the bible and point out its contradictions. The bible provides its own premises, which are seriously flawed.

If you admit that the Bible has contradictions on this issue, then pretending that it only holds the positions you disagree with and not the ones you agree with is dishonest and counter-productive, especially since it puts you in the bizarre position of defending statements you ostensibly don't agree with from attack.

And if you believe that a premise is flawed, offering it up as evidence for your own position is singularly illogical. If you think the premise is illogical, what am I to do really? Normally, in a debate, one tries to show how the premises of their interlocutor are flawed. But you admit from the get-go that the premise is flawed. You've done my job for me, so all that's left for me is to agree with you. If you think that the Bible holds inconsistent positions, but also believe that the Bible cannot contain inconsistencies, your thoughts have become paradoxically muddled and you should be seeking to determine which of your premises are in error.

I don't have to agree or disagree with anything, I can merely point out that there are contradictions in the bible, give examples if necessary, whereupon the reader can check for themselves and draw their own conclusions.


What conclusions may be drawn when, in the same book, we are told about love, kindness, forgiveness, yet eternal torment in hell for disbelief?

What conclusion is to be found in Love.....but slaves obey your master in all things?