The Christian Bible condones slavery explicitly in numerous passages. One of those reference often by slave owners in the Antebellum South comes from the story of Noah.
Genesis 9:24-27
9:24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.
9:25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
9:26 And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
9:27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
The book of Joshua also demonstrates the Christian god’s support of slavery:
9:27 And Joshua made them that day hewers of wood and drawers of water for the congregation, and for the altar of the LORD, even unto this day, in the place which he should choose.
In fact, there are numerous biblical instructions on how to acquire slaves, making it clear that buying people for money is perfectly acceptable.
Exodus 21:2-7
21:2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.
21:3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.
21:4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself.
21:5 And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:
21:6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.
21:7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.
Leviticus 22:10-11
22:10 There shall no stranger eat of the holy thing: a sojourner of the priest, or an hired servant, shall not eat of the holy thing.
22:11 But if the priest buy any soul with his money, he shall eat of it, and he that is born in his house: they shall eat of his meat.
Or slaves can be taken in war.
Deuteronomy 20:10-14
20:10 When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it.
20:11 And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee.
20:12 And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it:
20:13 And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:
20:14 But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.
Leviticus goes on to make it clear that slaves are inheritable possessions.
25:44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
25:45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
25:46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigor.
There are also many biblical instructions on how to treat slaves. Genesis 16:6-9 says that angels will force slaves to return to their owners.
16:6 But Abram said unto Sarai, Behold, thy maid is in thine hand; do to her as it pleaseth thee. And when Sarai dealt hardly with her, she fled from her face.
16:7 And the angel of the LORD found her by a fountain of water in the wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur.
16:8 And he said, Hagar, Sarai’s maid, whence camest thou? and whither wilt thou go? And she said, I flee from the face of my mistress Sarai.
16:9 And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands.
Beating slaves as long as they don’t die immediately is perfectly fine.
Exodus 21:20-21
21:20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
21:21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
Leviticus shows that slaves are property, not covered by the laws protecting other people.
19:20 And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free.
The New Testament doesn’t fare any better. Slavery is explicitly condoned in many places.
Luke 12:46-47
12:46 The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.
12:47 And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
Luke 17:7-9
17:7 But which of you, having a servant plowing or feeding cattle, will say unto him by and by, when he is come from the field, Go and sit down to meat?
17:8 And will not rather say unto him, Make ready wherewith I may sup, and gird thyself, and serve me, till I have eaten and drunken; and afterward thou shalt eat and drink?
17:9 Doth he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I trow not.
1 Corinthians 7:21-22
7:21 Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather.
7:22 For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord’s freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ’s servant.
Ephesians 6:5 Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God.
Colossians 3:22 Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ.
1 Timothy 6:1 Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.
Titus 2:9-10
2:9 Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again;
2:10 Not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things.
1 Peter 2:18 Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.
Nowhere in the Christian Bible is slavery explicitly condemned nor are any of the verses that explicitly support the practice repudiated. Of course, numerous verses are interpreted to be anti-slavery. The fact that both slavery proponents and abolitionists were able to quote scripture in support of their views demonstrates clearly that the bible is, at best, ambiguous. Surely a book intended to provide moral guidance could have found room in the Ten Commandments for “Thou shalt not own slaves.”
The rational conclusion is that the bible is an amalgamation of writings by many different men, each with his own political goals and views on morality. It is only those who hold it to be the inerrant word of their god who find themselves in the position of attempting to defend the odious passages that clearly support slavery. That attempted defense is a blatant and appalling demonstration of religious belief overriding common decency and empathy.
Alan fox asks:
Those who are, so to speak, professionals in the practice of understanding a spiritual text.
I’m sure such frustration would also manifest if you were to try and apply your uninformed, ungrounded reasoning to any area of expertise that you are ignorant of / untrained in. If we were talking about law, your protestations that certain legal proceedings made no sense or that one bit of law seems to contradict the other would simply be the cry of ignorance. If you were ask me to explain some isolated aspect of website design or digital graphics to you, I’d be largely at a loss to do so because understanding what I am saying would require a lot of basic ground understanding you (the general you) do not have.
I don’t know how many times I’ve attempted to explain something to a client only to have them think I’m bullshitting them. I’m sure any service professional has the same issue. I’ve encountered others in my profession fresh out of college with degrees who understand hot to use programs, but have no idea how to set up and organize their digital files for the real world. There’s stuff that I know only because I’m a 20 year professional in the business.
But, if I write a book about setting up and using business graphics utilizing various programs for website design, then you think you, with little or no formal training and experience, have the capacity to take a sentence or two out of my book and say hey, look, he’s contradicting himself?
It would just be more mature to admit you don’t know what THEY are talking about, and that you don’t understand it enough to have an informed opinion about it. Admitting spiritual ignorance isn’t a bad thing. It might even help you to get along with and enjoy the company of non-secularists.
What is this should? I’m not about to offer any explanation for why anyone should take my interpretations seriously – because I certainly don’t believe anyone should take me seriously, but rather that other people can take my interpretations seriously if they find them credible. If you don’t find them credible, reject away; it’s no skin off my teeth.
But, for those people who don’t find FMM’s claims credible, I am offering an alternative. And that, is reason enough to offer them.
I certainly don’t think you should, but then don’t find the practice of law to be remotely parallel to textual education and criticism. In point of fact, I would bet that one could not even find someone working in such a profession they rejected and scorn, but I suppose stranger things abound.
To me a better analogy would be whether there’s reason a person should take seriously the political arguments and criticisms of someone who rejects politics. To my mind, there’s absolutely no reason a person has to be political to criticize the concept or politicians who espouse silly political claims. Similarly, to my mind, there’s absolutely no reason a person has to be spiritual to criticize the concept or the practitioners who espouse silly spiritual claims.
Robin,
I don’t know if FMM has any training or knowledge – I don’t know FMM and I’m hardly knowledgeable enough about christianity to pass judgement.
It’s just a matter of logic. If someone is untrained/unexperienced and hasn’t the proper context/understanding, then there’s no reason to take anything they say on any such matter seriously. What I do know from personal experience is that people who do not experience or reject the spiritual, generally speaking, don’t have a clue when it comes to people talking about spiritual things.
It represents the problem of understanding phrases and text even given same time-frame and generally the same culture. You may expect to be taken seriously because, well, that’s what some people will do for whatever reason. But, from my perspective, I only take seriously those who rationally warrant my taking their views seriously – meaning knowledge, training, experience.
This is a conceptual mess. What does “being political’ mean? If they reject politics, what does that mean? Why are they offering an opinion on some poltical claim if they have “rejected” politics? Isn’t criticising a political position necessarily a political view?
If a person tells me they are not political and then start offering a political opinion or a criticism of some political view, I immediately understand they are at best a poor rational thinker.
If we take your anlogy and flesh it out to something rational, what would the non-political person be saying? “I’m not political, but I do know that building a wall on our southern border is a ridiculous idea.” So, they would be, in their mind, pointing out the ridiculous nature of a political claim from a position of being apolitical.
Well, if it isn’t that person’s politics that makes the wall a ridiculous political idea, what does? Can such a wall not physically be built? Will such a wall not hinder illegal immigration from the south?
How about the political idea that we should be able to own and carry guns with us everywhere we go. Or that we should temporarily ban legal immigration from certain countries until we develop a better vetting system. How can these political ideas be criticized from the perspective of the apolitical? Can they physically not occur?
So, no. If you don’t really understand or have experience in what it is you are criticizing, such criticisms are inconsequential.
William J. Murray July 26, 2016 at 4:47 pm
Of course. And that would be fine if professionals in studying bible texts and sources were able to separate their professional and religious rôles. Bart Erhman seems to be making an effort in that direction.
I’m not criticising efforts to understand the historical context, linguistics, meaning, sources, authors and so on. I welcome such research. I was pointing out the dilemma of claiming inerrancy in the face of obvious contradictions and discrepancies or the alternative of indulging in exegesis to arrive at a desired conclusion. Neither seems professional.
People are skeptical when they think someone is selling something. That’s human nature and that’s business.
Everyone’s a critic. 🙂
In the circles I move in, religion tends to be avoided as a topic of conversation as it can lead to heated and unproductive arguments. I’m sure some of my friends and acquaintances are religious and I’ve no problem with that. Two good friends are quakers (I’ve mentioned this before) but quakers don’t proselytise so maybe that’s why I enjoy their company. What many of my friends (it seems to be women) are is spiritual in a non-denominational way. Not my thing but seems harmless.
Ok.
Oh, I agree, but then I’m not untrained. I may not come from FMM’s school of theology and I may well have dropped my belief in Christianity, but that doesn’t take away my expertise in textual analysis and understanding. But even this isn’t a reason that someone should take my word over FMM’s on any of it; it’s simply that I can offer some insight into this particular subject that some folk may find more credible that what FMM is offering. And since in such discussions, credentials hardly matter, optional interpretations is all I’m providing.
Well, I think that’s hogwash. But even beyond that, it’s not like I always rejected the spiritual, nor is it that I have no experience with it. I will say that my experience is a rather wide departure from FMM’s, but I’m betting that’s rather obvious.
But in truth, my past experience is completely irrelevant in this particular discussion. The questions regarding the bible’s stance on slavery are pretty straight forward and require (imho) zero spiritual knowledge. A simple, yes, the bible obviously endorses slavery would be sufficient. It’s rather telling that many evangelicals feel they can’t say that.
Endorses is a bit strong, although there are endorsements for taking slaves in war.
I would say “sanctions,” in the sense of gives permission and provides rules and regulations.
It’s interesting that the same passages that regulate the taking of slaves in war also prescribe genocide. I’d find that a bit embarrassing, particularly if my relatives had been subjected to an attempted genocide.
Being Christian or Muslim doesn’t distance you from this.
Just a quick question. How would an atheist argue that slavery is wrong?
I’m quite serious. Euthanasia and abortion are often rationalized on the principle that I own my own life, or that I own my own body. Well, if I own something, then surely I can sell it to a willing buyer. And if I own myself, then I can sell myself, which means that I can turn myself into a slave if I want to.
You might reply that few people would choose to do that. I disagree. Plenty of people would, if they were in penury, and if they thought that by selling themselves, they would receive a sum of money that could benefit their children economically and/or educationally (e.g. pay for their college education). Think it won’t happen in the West? Wait a few decades.
Is it only those with sufficient theological training/spiritual discernment who are allowed to batter their
slavesservants or can anyone have a go?The same way a theist would.
Surely you are not going to argue that religion provides any guidance in this area, are you?
Well I don’t expect to be taken seriously simply because I posted something. Personally, I don’t expect to be taken seriously at all. I don’t see there being any value in such an expectation.
I find my interpretation credible given the biblical education and training I’ve received and my understanding of historical and sociological perspectives. That and other like-minded individuals have found my understandings and explanations fruitful. If you don’t, I’ve no heartburn. There’s no obligation for anyone to take what I post with anything more than a grain of salt. However, if FMM can’t provide a reasonable explanation for an obviously contradictory biblical position, but rather offers a hand-wave and a you can’t possibly understand in your spiritual ignorance, there’s certainly no reason I can’t fill the void and offer an alternative to FMM’s wackiness.
Oddly, neither of you have actually commented on my biblical explanation. That’s fine too, but it is rather telling…
Full Definition of political
1
a : of or relating to government, a government, or the conduct of government b : of, relating to, or concerned with the making as distinguished from the administration of governmental policy
2
: of, relating to, involving, or involved in politics and especially party politics
3
: organized in governmental terms
Merriam-Webster
It means (for example) that someone has rejected party politics or a party’s stance on policy or even partisan political perspectives.
There can be any number of reasons. Perhaps they are of the opinion that far too much media attention is devoted to politics when it should be devoted to profound discourse on biblical interpretation displayed on certain message boards?
Necessarily? No. Are people who criticize abortion or gun use or money expended on particular transportation projects necessarily being political? Are people who criticize the partisan positions on such topics necessarily being political? I would answer no to both those questions. Unless one is specifically arguing policy or that government should make policy regarding some subject, simply taking on stand on said subject is not political.
For example, I can write I feel there are a number of medical situations in which abortion would be an appropriate procedure. I certainly don’t think that qualifies as a political statement. Similarly, I could write, I feel that transportation is one of the most important economic considerations for a modern society. I don’t feel that is a political statement either. Yet both are subjects that routinely crop up in politics.
I have no doubt. For me, it would depend greatly on how the person approached the topic.
No, if we fleshed it out, we’d take your statement to me as the beginning. You accused me of not being spiritual, so by analogy my example would run along the lines of:
William: That people do take seriously the interpretations of the apolitical who ridicule the very idea of Trump’s claims concerning women doesn’t explain why anyone should take them seriously.
Perhaps, as has actually been noted, the person criticizes a wall idea in general for the fact that such a structure would be ineffective against what it’s proposed to accomplish. But that’s neither here nor there…
Easy, but that’s missing the point of my analogy. The way you approached discrediting people’s criticisms of FMM’s biblical position and his handwaves of the bible’s stance on slavery was to suggest that there’s an analogy between the secularist understanding of spirituality and the non-lawyer’s understanding of law. But FMM doesn’t have any greater credentials on biblical interpretation that anyone can point to than us secularists (he’s certainly not a professional of theology at the very least), so a more apt analogy would be to someone offering non-professional opinions.
And as noted, A) I do, so your criticism doesn’t actually apply to me
B) your criticism applies to FMM
and C) doesn’t really matter much in this medium since no one’s credentials (or lack there of) really could be used to settle whether the bible endorses slavery.
In practical sense, since slavery is outlawed you could not legally transfer the title to yourself to another as a legally binding contract. You could if you choose create a contract for personnel services with whatever onerous conditions you choose.
Perhaps, but under our laws slavery is not allowed.
It will take a constitutional admendment, but what is the advantage of slavery to the buyer. He would still be bound by legal worker protections,have no clear title to the person,not be able to have property rights to any offspring. Since unskilled labor is available at lower cost than the upkeep of a slave. It no longer makes sense economically.
Golden rule?
Personally, my politics is based on the possibility that my children and grandchildren, nieces and nephews, will not be among the privileged and ruling class. So I argue for and hope for a society in which all people have equal rights.
Just protecting my descendents.
Fine. I defer to your term. Sanctions it is. Do I need to edit all my posts now?
I’m not arguing with you. I didn’t even look to see who posted the word endorse. I frequently read through posts without looking to see who posted them. Other than the short lists of creationists whose posts I don’t read at all.
People have rights over their own selves
Sure, but slavery is the quintessential opposite of self-ownership. I’m not aware of any situation of someone selling him or herself into slavery (or being able to do so, for that matter). And since the bible is most clear that THAT is not the scenario for slavery mentioned therein, I don’t see this as particularly on subject.
Just curious Vincent, can you provide an example of this ever happening? The vast majority of cases I can find (and certainly all the examples I can find from the ancient world and those portrayed in the bible) were victims of some form of occupation (war, pirates, trade from neighboring territories, parents selling children, kidnappings, religious rituals, and so forth) and NONE had any say in the matter. I find your argument dubious at best.
I’m just giving you a hard time Petrushka. 🙂
But I do think your word is better, so I’ll use it from now on.
I disagree with the Lockean assumption that bodily self-ownership are the only (or best!) way of defending the moral permissibility of euthanasia and/or abortion. Instead, think about the idea that the cultivation or unfolding of one’s capacities requires that one be sufficiently free of material deprivation that one can construct a rational life-plan for oneself. This involves a capacity for self-determination.
This capacity needn’t be (and shouldn’t be) as metaphysically inflated as the noumenal freedom required for Kantian self-determination; it can be a more modest cousin of the Kantian view, holding simply that one ought to be able to have a say in the shape of one’s life, even though there are conditions and constraints that one hasn’t chosen. As Sartre nicely puts it, “one can always make something of what one has been made into”, at least as a moral ideal. (Whether differences in institutionalized power restricts that ideal to members of relatively more privileged groups is precisely where Beauvoir departs from the early Sartre.)
Given that, a material condition on self-determination is bodily self-determination: the capacity to express and act on one’s bodily needs, vulnerabilities, pleasures, movements, sufferings etc. One’s body is not a mere instrument for the use of others, but the ground of one’s living existence, the center-point from which future possibilities radiate. And just as one’s body is not an instrument, neither is it a commodity to be bought and sold.
When the commodification and instrumentalization is involuntary, there is an unending performance of humiliation, degradation, torture, rape, and abuse in order to produce (constantly produce, I would say) the instrumentalized and commodified body of the slave.
As the wrongness of “voluntary” slavery, it’s a betrayal of one’s own possibilities. One turns oneself into a thing, an object, a possession — to be used or abused, enjoyed or tormented. No doubt there are people desperate enough to do that. (I believe that selling oneself into slavery in order to pay debts was not unheard-of in antiquity.) But clearly there is something wicked (not to mention pathological and self-destructive) about a society that makes such an option seem like the most reasonable one.
What’s antiquity? It’s still done. It’s forbidden by the U.S. constitution, but lots of people have gone into the military in order to get college tuition paid. In doing so, one puts one’s life at the mercy of the government. there’s no recourse if you are ordered to do something that gets you killed.
The fact is it is impossible for you to understand what the text means there is simply no way for me to explain it to you
quote:
Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual. The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.
(1Co 2:12-14)
end quote
You can however be confident that Exodus 21:20-21 is not permission for you to beat your slave. Because to do so would be inconsistent with loving your neighbor as yourself.
peace
No, It’s clear the the Law and the prophets don’t endorse slavery. Jesus said so (Mathew 22:37-40) he is in a much better position to know what the text means than you are
peace
Yes people are flawed and believe all sorts of stupid things but they did not get this idea from the Bible.
Many Ancient Jews thought Samaritans were less than human but Jesus explains that these are precisely the sort of folks he means when he talks about neighbors,
On the other hand
Many non Christians got the idea that other races are less than human from the theory of evolution. Does that make the theory of evolution false or all non Christians evil?
peace
anyone who has the Spirit of God
peace
I think you need to look into that Herod thing. You might find that your position makes you look foolish.
Acartia has confused Herod’s order to slaughter newborns in Bethlehem with the census that Luke mentions. These are two different episodes that are not even in the same gospel.
Is this is the kind of research you have done on the topic?
peace
fifth:
Ha. What a cop-out.
I do understand what the text means, as does everyone else whose brain isn’t addled by so-called “spiritual understanding”. The language of the passage is simple, straightforward, and easy to interpret. I summarized it here:
Unfortunately for you, the straightforward, sensible interpretation of the passage clashes with your ridiculous claim that the Bible does not endorse slavery.
So let’s hear it. What do you think the passage means?
I know you’d rather not answer the question, but put the excuses aside and defend your position.
Hi, Vincent — I’m curious about your position on Exodus 20:20-21.
Do you think it is the word of God, and how do you interpret it?
It would take months to explain the relationship between the Old Covenant and the New. Even then you would not get it.
In short
The passage is about us rebels and our relationship to Sin and the Law.
Here is a very quick summary from a very old commentary from the 18th century to give you an idea of where the discussion would go.
quote:
The laws in this chapter relate to the fifth and sixth commandments; and though they differ from our times and customs, nor are they binding on us, yet they explain the moral law, and the rules of natural justice. The servant, in the state of servitude, was an emblem of that state of bondage to sin, Satan, and the law, which man is brought into by robbing God of his glory, by the transgression of his precepts. Likewise in being made free, he was an emblem of that liberty wherewith
Christ, the Son of God, makes free from bondage his people, who are free indeed; and made so freely, without money and without price, of free grace. (Ex 21:12-21)
end quote:
from here
https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/Matthew-Henry/Exod/Laws-Respecting-Servants
I would disagree with Henry about the so called “Moral law”.
But it’s important to note that he wrote while slavery was wide spread and even then he did not think that the passage had any physical relevance to the contemporary treatment of slaves at all.
peace
Fascinating. It can’t possibly mean what it clearly means because then the bible would support slavery. But you’re not coming into this with any a priori assumptions like us evil non-theists.
Despite it saying exactly what you say it doesn’t. You can cover your own eyes but you can’t cover everyone else’s.
Besides, slavery is “temporary and local” according to you. What’s the big deal about accepting the clear meaning of the words? Do you really know better than your god what he meant to say?
There’s another problem with your argument William I forgot to note before: your argument flatly conflicts with the evangelical/fundamentalist argument that the bible’s writers and translators were inspired vessels of God who reflected with accuracy God’s inerrant word in the bible. So even in our apparent spiritual depravity and starvation, if the text on slavery cannot be read plainly, then it cannot be said to be inerrant, useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 and all that…
Quick question
“When men quarrel and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist and the man does not die but takes to his bed, then if the man rises again and walks outdoors with his staff, he who struck him shall be clear; only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall have him thoroughly healed.
(Exo 21:18-19)
Do you all think that this text condones beating others with impunity as long as you don’t kill them and compensate them for any lost wages?
peace
keiths:
KN:
Then animals and other sentient creatures are merely a means to the end of human flourishing. You’re giving their flourishing no moral weight whatsoever, except to the extent that it promotes human flourishing. Your “objective” morality is hopelessly speciesist.
That contradicts what you just wrote.
We’ve had this conversation before, and you conceded that
I guess the reformulation never happened?
But you haven’t explained why that is any more objective than the alternate criteria of “flourishing” that I listed.
To you, something is objectively moral to the extent that it promotes human flourishing. A Tralfamadorian tells you that no, objective morality is defined relative to Tralfamadorian flourishing. Who’s objectively right, and how do you make this determination?
Sure there is. The fact that the universe is 13.7 billion years old is objective knowledge, and it remains so regardless of “human and animal needs, interests, and desires.”
Your choice of human flourishing as the basis of morality is subjective, not objective.
No it does not —-clearly— mean that. If it did you would not have to appeal to contradiction. If the Bible contradicts itself it’s meaning is not clear by definition
On the other hand if the Bible does not contradict itself it clearly does not condone slavery because that would be inconsistent with loving your neighbor as yourself.
You can’t have it both ways
peace
You are posing a false equivalence. Here are the verses under discussion:
Exo 21:20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
Exo 21:21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
Note that last bit: “for he is his money.” That is clear sanction (h/t Robin) of slavery.
How about answering the actual questions rather than trying to distract from what your holy book actually says.
Brilliant.
As presuppositional cop-outs go that’s up there.
Why, you could almost call it a contradiction!
Sadly, Jesus only turned up a thousand or so years after Exodus. So at the time the handy rules for beating your slaves were handed down there was no Jesus nor any commandment to Love Thy Neighbour. Beating your slaves was clearly permitted and controlled.
But hey, what the fuck do I know?
Can somebody with spiritual understanding please explain what this means…
Or maybe the bit where a rape victim is forced to marry their rapist? Doesn’t sound very neighbourly to me – maybe I’m just not sufficiently enlightened/saved?
The text is useless with out the enabling Spirit of God. You as an apostate should know at least that.
If you don’t I would question you ever know anything of what Fundamentalists believe
peace
I pointed out numerous contradictions and highlighted three in particular: the order of creation in Genesis, how Judas died, and hares chewing the cud. You have replied to none of those.
I and others have also pointed out the clear statements in the bible sanctioning slavery. You’re just handwaving frantically about those.
You’re the one trying to have it both ways — an inerrant bible that does not sanction slavery.
apparently you don’t know how to express yourself with out using profanity.
peace
That “enabling spirit of god” is what allows you to dismiss slavery as “temporary and local”, of far less importance than rules about women’s menstrual cycles? If so, the world could do with a lot less of it.
Woodbine:
There was a “love thy neighbor” commandment, actually:
That doesn’t help fifth’s case, of course.
That’s pretty funny, coming from someone who insists that such “objective knowledge” is also “illegitimate”.
It’s knowledge with the implicit asterisk, KN.
We can’t know that the universe is 13.7 billion years old without knowing that our senses are generally veridical. If we did know the latter, we could also know the former. Hence the asterisk.
Do you still not get that?
Thanks for the correction.
Tough luck that
slavesservants don’t count as ‘neighbours’.If only I had the enabling Spirit of God to paper over these cracks.
Here’s what’s really funny.
By fifth’s inane logic, God actually caused people to love each other less by issuing that commandment.
Fifth wrote:
And here’s Romans 7:7-8:
By that reasoning, God commands us to love our neighbors, thus causing us to love them less. And one way of loving your neighbors less is to enslave them.
Again, I nominate fifth for Worst Apologist Ever. Can I have an amen?
They used the Bible to justify it, it is not hard to find their arguments,too bad the word of God is subject to such a wide range of interpretation.
Regardless the golden rule did not apply to slaves anymore than it applied to your horse to some Christians. Certainly one could be a believe in the Bible and own slaves.
What I am not saying is the Bible caused someone to own slaves ,slavery was an economic system. Christians were dependent on that system as was the fate of the nation.
Funny how people pick and choose what to believe to justify their actions.
To some Christians that is exactly what it means. Don’t forget many non Christians don’t accept the theory of evolution, they have their own sacred texts. Subject to widely varying interpretations
….or even our own names.
walto,
Lacking a refutation, you substitute (attempted) mockery.
Mock all you want. You still can’t refute my position.
What is this name thing? It sounds like an incantation, magic. People call us by various names. I’ve had friends and classmates call me by a dozen different (printable) names. I don’t “have” a name.
There are names I recognize when someone calls me. Oddly enough I recognized those dozen or so the first time I heard them.
Lulz. These conversations always focus on what materialists can’t do, rather than what religious / IDists can.
It may well be useless from a spiritual awakening standpoint, but I could not care less about that. There is nothing that the “Spirit of God” can do to change the meaning of the words used in Exodus. About the only rational argument that one could possibly make is that while the those verse in Exodus do indeed sanction slavery (H/T to Petrushka via Patrick), the context is a specific commandment to the post-exilic Jewish community and not those under the new covenant. That would present other problems, but at least it would be honest and rational.
The entire thread and exchange is simply a good example of the convoluted excuses fundamentalists must rely upon to rationalize the contradictions in the bible. That you wish to hand-wave them with you ain’t gots the influence of the divine ghost, yo! really just could not be a more blatant example.
Riiight…I’m not Asian, so I couldn’t possibly know anything about Asians or Asian culture. I’m a criminal, so I couldn’t possibly know anything about criminals, criminology, or criminal behavior. I’m not physicist, so I couldn’t possibly know anything about physicists or their area of study. Nice to see the Fallacy of the General Rule coupled with the Genetic Fallacy is alive and well…
Rich,
William laments our inability to “properly interpret spiritual texts”, then admits that he can’t do it either when the text in question is Exodus 21:20-21:
What spiritual texts can you “properly interpret”, William, and how do you know that?