Christians who reject the old testament and slavery

[Phantasman]

I've never understood why Christians will reject the old testament and pretend to be reasonable, even though its essential for establishing the prophecies and origins surrounding Jesus. It sets up the entire context for Jesus, and Jesus references the old testament on numerous occasions.

Christians will say stuff like "Well that's the old testament" or "Maybe you're not aware of old testament abrogation" .

However, Jesus specifically told his followers to keep the commandments and that slaves should "obey their masters". Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25 are totally consistent with this. There isn't abrogation regarding slavery at all.

Clearly the bible and Christian doctrine supports slavery. I'm not sure there's any apologetic that can defend this.

How do Christians justify their book and doctrine supporting slavery? And you can't just say "that's the old testament", as if that somehow solves the problem. Can a Christian explain this massive problem?

Malarkey.

John 8:
If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.

I suggest you read John 8 to see who are slaves. This (non canon) Gospel may help you see the faults of the OT Jews and the NT books such as Hebrews and the Pastorals that were written by Pharisee (catholic) sympathizers.

"For so long as the root of wickedness is hidden, it is strong. But when it is recognized, it is dissolved. When it is revealed, it perishes. That is why the Word says, "Already the axe is laid at the root of the trees" (Mt 3:10). It will not merely cut - what is cut sprouts again - but the ax penetrates deeply, until it brings up the root. Jesus pulled out the root of the whole place, while others did it only partially. As for ourselves, let each one of us dig down after the root of evil which is within one, and let one pluck it out of one's heart from the root. It will be plucked out if we recognize it. But if we are ignorant of it, it takes root in us and produces its fruit in our heart. It masters us. We are its slaves. It takes us captive, to make us do what we do not want; and what we do want, we do not do. It is powerful because we have not recognized it. While it exists it is active. Ignorance is the mother of all evil. Ignorance will result in death, because those who come from ignorance neither were nor are nor shall be. [...] will be perfect when all the truth is revealed. For truth is like ignorance: while it is hidden, it rests in itself, but when it is revealed and is recognized, it is praised, inasmuch as it is stronger than ignorance and error. It gives freedom. The Word said, "If you know the truth, the truth will make you free" (Jn 8:32). Ignorance is a slave. Knowledge is freedom. If we know the truth, we shall find the fruits of the truth within us. If we are joined to it, it will bring our fulfillment."- Gospel of Philip

Even priests make men slaves.

 

[joe1776]

.... I believe our Christian forbears were wrong to uphold American slavery with the Bible, just as surely as our present, draconian moral watchdogs are wrong to dehumanize homosexuals, based on some perceived biblical injunction.

What causes you to reject the guidance of scripture on the issues of slavery and homosexuality if not conscience? And, if God exists isn't conscience His gift? So, why would God give us a conscience for moral guidance and then inspire men to give us moral guidance in scripture that conflicts?

 

[syo]

Why would the Christian part win when the Jewish part came first? Or is that just preference over logic?

Where is the love in the old testament?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

From a syncretic pagan point of view, if I find contradictions between the two testaments, the new testament wins.

If I find conflicting data, the one with the most accurate ones wins.

The Abrahamics seem to be the least prepared for informed opinions, IMHO, about how the world works. Sure, there are sillier things to read in the realm of mythology, but many god myths work out to metaphorical analogies for star and planet movements (hence the constellations and the stories behind them). We don't have to believe ravens are literally in the sun to congratulate ancient Chinese for seeing sunspots the Abrahamics didn't even know were there.

The NT clearly supported slavery, relative inequality been men and women, and had little to say about democracy and international cooperation. We'll find the same problem with the Quran. Both religions emerged at a time when humanity was not ready for the types of changes we take from granted in these more modern times. You would expect a more recent revelation from God to strongly and clearly emphasise the abolition of slavery, equality of men and women, democracy, and international cooperation.

I would agree but then again, I would expect a God to teach people and MAKE them ready, not just tell them to sit around studying scripture. I mean, the wisest man on earth per the bible had to outsource architects to build a brick rectangle with some fancy parts. That doesn't sound right to me. How come pagans could be educated and not the Abrahamics? Clearly many humans were "ready" at that time frame.

Joseph in Genesis called his brothers enslaving him as evil.

And then the story tries to make him feel better by giving him a complimentary upgrade to First Class. This also sets up the Exodus arc, so the entire story ends up with nearly everyone of that population dying off centuries later, both by Egyptian and by Divine hands.

Sometimes God has laws restraining a bad situation from being worse.

He's God. He can make the laws right to begin with.

God: Okay, Moses, we need to set up laws.
Moses: Okay. We just left a nation with some of the best laws at the time. This should be easy.
God: All those rights and stuff for women have to go.
Moses: Wait, what?
God: Humans aren't ready for that yet.
Moses: I ... we ... we JUST came from a nation where women weren't treated like crap. Clearly they are ready.
God: We need to take it slow.
Moses: It's been centuries?
God: I'm a patient Guy.
Moses: But we're all going to die of old age before You fix things? What's the point of leaving Egypt again? Why not just wait until You're in the mood?
God: I'm bored. And you guys won't stop whining about how bad you have it in the most beautiful and epic land available in the region at this time. It's not like you're building pyramids. They PAY those workers.
Moses: Okay, but slavery should be banned. Because, you know ....
God: Oh, I know. But the problem is that this is addressing YOU guys. YOU guys are upset that you are slaves. You guys never mention that other slaves should be freed too. You clearly only really care about yourselves.

God hates divorce in Malachi but has rules regulating it through Moses but as Jesus said 'it was for the hardness of your hearts" keeping a bad situation from worse

Jesus has "family issues". So did Moses. Again, God is not powerless. He can make the rules say whatever He wants.

However everyone is a slave to something, to pleasure, to sin, to righteousness ... in Christ we move from being slaves of sin to slaves of Christ and God. Being a servant by itself is not bad for a worthy master.

What difference does it make? I mean, a plantation owner can only whip you to death. God is going to burn the entire planet to the ground for things He can easily fix. Jesus is the supposed "Good Shepherd", but shepherds EAT their sheep eventually. That's where lamb chops come from.

The Greeks, for example, though slavery was simply part of nature due to the natural inequality between people.

And yet they had to live in constant fear of slave revolts, as though deep down they knew it was mistreatment of others.

and when it was the judaic religious high priests that had Jesus put to death in the story of Christ.

In which Bible? All the ones I've seen have the Romans do it.

Who will win out in the long run?
Will that make meat eating immoral, or
moral depending on how it turns out?

Clearly the torture of animals is wrong. If I had my druthers, we would wait until the animals died naturally and then "scavenge". Or, if executing the animals will be a thing, make it short and painless. None of this tearing off claws and beaks and stuff. Ick. That's just uncalled for.

And we should be working on the petri dish meat. If we can grow it, why not?

It's a better solution than what God had (Oh, you have a famine? That sucks. Just move somewhere else. That'll fix things. I made an entire universe but I don't have the time to whip up a large field of wheat.)

What is anyone doing adopting a middle eastern
sky god cult as if it were their story, their history?

Yeah, I mean, I live in the States, so shouldn't I be more focused on native divinity?

After all, there used to be gods of this and that town. Even when religions claim that a divinity is all-present or something, clearly in practice there were far more limited jurisdictions.

Is it a case of, "I didn't tell you murder was wrong, because you weren't ready to hear it yet."? To me, this paints a very peculiar, and disturbing image of God. What exactly is the point of "revelation" then?

It's kind of like some people's thoughts about sex ed: Don't tell them how it works until you're already a grandparent. Sure, you might be a 30 year old grandparent, but at least you didn't have to tell your kids about penises!

I'd bet that the sensitivity of conscience is present in the human personality in a range from weak to strong. The most sensitive consciences in all cultures would feel the wrongness first. Then they would express their feelings to others close to them and force them to examine their conscience on the issue. I think the process continues to spread, from mind to mind, until it reaches a tipping point -- then change happens.

Or, like I mentioned earlier, if you are a slaver society and you are terrified of revolts, that means you KNOW it's bad. Happy people don't revolt.

 

[sojourner]

What causes you to reject the guidance of scripture on the issues of slavery and homosexuality if not conscience? And, if God exists isn't conscience His gift? So, why would God give us a conscience for moral guidance and then inspire men to give us moral guidance in scripture that conflicts?

It's not just conscience. It's also the realization that certain texts simply are no longer cogent, it's the weighing of scripture against other sources (as I mentioned earlier), it's the realization of what the biblical record is. We have the biblical record -- not as a "how-to" book, but as the repository of the theological history of God's people. Because of it, we can look back to see how our forebears negotiated their own theological waters. Those waters are not necessarily our waters, just as Lake Itasca is not the Mississippi river when it gets to Memphis. It isn't the scriptures, themselves (or God's urgency in communicating moral guidelines to us) that hinders the cogency of the scriptural teachings; it is the imposition of the canon, itself. We have twisted the canon into something it was never intended to be. The canon is not a maximum standard -- it's a minimum standard. It was never meant to say, "This is the ONLY stuff that's 'scriptural.'" It was meant to say, "This is the stuff that's OK to read in church." It's not meant to be exclusionary of other sources of inspiration.

You're operating under the assumption that the scriptural texts are 1) infallible and 2) absolute. They are not. It is always unreasonable to take the texts at face value. And when reason and scripture clash, reason wins out.

 

[sojourner]

Where is the love in the old testament?

Ever read the Psalms? Or Song of Solomon? Ever read how God showed mercy to people who did not deserve such, and how God showed mercy to the Hebrews?

 

[sojourner]

I don't know why. However, we see it happening even today. There are cultures which are morally advanced on treating women as equals to men while other cultures lag. You won't find scripture supporting that moral advance either.

Sure you do! Jesus included women among his disciples when, in the prevailing culture, women could not sit at the feet of Rabbis and learn. The gospel writers showed the women being braver and more loyal than the men when Jesus was crucified. Jesus spoke to the woman at the well, touched bleeding women, and protected prostitutes. There are several examples in the NT of women being church leaders (such as Phoebe). For the time of writing, the NT texts are quite advanced where gender equality is concerned.

 

[Augustus]

I think your expectation is unreasonable.

I'd bet that the sensitivity of conscience is present in the human personality in a range from weak to strong. The most sensitive consciences in all cultures would feel the wrongness first. Then they would express their feelings to others close to them and force them to examine their conscience on the issue. I think the process continues to spread, from mind to mind, until it reaches a tipping point -- then change happens.

It's unreasonable to expect to see evidence to support major claims about the universality of human ethics?

Ideas do spread and reach a tipping point, but claiming this supports an idea that 'everyone always secretly knew all along but didn't mention it' is not very rigorous. If you claim it is hardwired into us, it must have always existed, yet we see no evidence for thousands of years.

The relevant question in our discussion should be: Did Gregory's conscience lead him to his opinion on slavery or was he led to it by his interpretation of scripture?

Since you offered two quotes from the Bible, and neither was specifically about slavery, while more than 100 quotes on the topic were ignored, isn't it obvious that Gregory wasn't led to his position by his interpretation of scripture?

Slavery troubled his sensitive conscience and he found scripture he could use to support his position.

It, like much of religion, is exegesis and theological reasoning. Rank scriptural literalism is not the sum total of religion.

A question: There are 2 people who have the following beliefs:

A) Slavery is part of the natural order as humans are fundamentally unequal
B) All humans were created in the image of God and are thus equal

Are they both equally likely to oppose slavery?

 

[Dawnofhope]

If people were ready on their own to get rid of slavery and inequality between the sexes, then why would a revelation from God be necessary? They already figured it out on their own, no thanks to the lack of revelation from God supposedly withheld for thousands of years worth of human suffering "until they were ready".

Is it a case of, "I didn't tell you murder was wrong, because you weren't ready to hear it yet."? To me, this paints a very peculiar, and disturbing image of God. What exactly is the point of "revelation" then?

You are making an assumption that religion hasn’t helped to us get where we are today. A fairer analysis of each Revelation whether if be from Krishna, Christ or Buddha is to recognise their profound influences on the hearts and minds of us all. We wouldn’t be having this conversation if that were not true.

Just because Moses brought some laws that are clearly archaic by today’s standard does not mean they didn’t serve a vital purpose at the time.

 

[PureX]

In which Bible? All the ones I've seen have the Romans do it.

At the behest of the high priests. According to the story, Pilot wasn't keen on doing their wet work for them, but eventually agreed by 'washing his hands of the whole thing'.

 

[joe1776]

It's not just conscience. It's also the realization that certain texts simply are no longer cogent, it's the weighing of scripture against other sources (as I mentioned earlier), it's the realization of what the biblical record is. We have the biblical record -- not as a "how-to" book, but as the repository of the theological history of God's people. Because of it, we can look back to see how our forebears negotiated their own theological waters. Those waters are not necessarily our waters, just as Lake Itasca is not the Mississippi river when it gets to Memphis. It isn't the scriptures, themselves (or God's urgency in communicating moral guidelines to us) that hinders the cogency of the scriptural teachings; it is the imposition of the canon, itself. We have twisted the canon into something it was never intended to be. The canon is not a maximum standard -- it's a minimum standard. It was never meant to say, "This is the ONLY stuff that's 'scriptural.'" It was meant to say, "This is the stuff that's OK to read in church." It's not meant to be exclusionary of other sources of inspiration.

You're operating under the assumption that the scriptural texts are 1) infallible and 2) absolute. They are not. It is always unreasonable to take the texts at face value. And when reason and scripture clash, reason wins out.

I'm not assuming the texts are infallible or absolute. I'm trying to understand why you think they have any value as moral guidance at all. However, I'm unable to follow your explanation.

 

[joe1776]

Just because Moses brought some laws that are clearly archaic by today’s standard does not mean they didn’t serve a vital purpose at the time.

Laws later found to be immoral served a useful purpose in an earlier time? That isn't making sense to me.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I would agree but then again, I would expect a God to teach people and MAKE them ready, not just tell them to sit around studying scripture. I mean, the wisest man on earth per the bible had to outsource architects to build a brick rectangle with some fancy parts. That doesn't sound right to me. How come pagans could be educated and not the Abrahamics? Clearly many humans were "ready" at that time frame.

You and I both operate in paradigms that are outside mainstream Christianity. That is not to say our current worldviews have not been influenced by the Teachings of Christ. At some point it is better to outside than inside the orthodoxy of religion. At other times being inside is better if the religion is new and the teachings in tune with the age we live in.

God asked us to live the best we can to enable us to discern the mysteries hidden within scripture so as to draw closer to him.

Every class has slow and fast learners. Some saw the light that is universally apparent now thousands of years ago. Humanity as a whole wasn’t ready to embrace modernity two thousand years ago. For one, education would have needed to be universal. It wasn’t.

 

[Windwalker]

You are making an assumption that religion hasn’t helped to us get where we are today.

The end of slavery was not a product of religious revival. On the contrary, visionaries of equality had to fight against religion who were justifying it by citing "God's word".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/history/slavery_1.shtml

A fairer analysis of each Revelation whether if be from Krishna, Christ or Buddha is to recognise their profound influences on the hearts and minds of us all. We wouldn’t be having this conversation if that were not true.

I don't think most people have been influenced. Most people are clueless as to what is taught. If even 10% of people on this planet actually were followers of the teachings, the world would be radically different. The reality is probably less that 1/10th of 1% are anywhere near that.

Just because Moses brought some laws that are clearly archaic by today’s standard does not mean they didn’t serve a vital purpose at the time.

I understand that, but you said God condoned slavery, while condemning murder, because they weren't ready for that yet? Was there a point he thought, "They're just not ready to hear, 'Thou shalt not kill' quite yet too? What about stealing? Did God hold back that "revelation" it was bad until he thought people might be ready now not to have the stuff stolen?

It is so, very much easier to say that when people were ready to change themselves, they had God say it for them. That's "revelation" on the level you are speaking about. Man creates God, and their prophets, as a reflection of their own emerging self-realizations.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Laws later found to be immoral served a useful purpose in an earlier time? That isn't making sense to me.

The Hebrew people 3500 years ago didn’t have access to prisons and the types of rehabilitation for criminals available today. So if someone strayed too far from the common weal what was to be done?

 

[joe1776]

It's unreasonable to expect to see evidence to support major claims about the universality of human ethics?

No, but your expectation was unreasonable in this case.

Ideas do spread and reach a tipping point, but claiming this supports an idea that 'everyone always secretly knew all along but didn't mention it' is not very rigorous.

I can see how that claim would make it easier for you to find fault with my reasoning, but that wasn't my claim.

A question: There are 2 people who have the following beliefs:

A) Slavery is part of the natural order as humans are fundamentally unequal
B) All humans were created in the image of God and are thus equal

Are they both equally likely to oppose slavery?

Of course not. However, it's likely that both parties began with an opinion on slavery that they wanted to justify.

 

[joe1776]

The Hebrew people 3500 years ago didn’t have access to prisons and the types of rehabilitation for criminals available today. So if someone strayed too far from the common weal what was to be done?

In Torah God ordered women, but not men, killed for adultery. Children killed for disobedience. Blasphemy was a capital crime. There are a few others I can't remember.

 

[Augustus]

Of course not. However, it's likely that both parties began with an opinion on slavery that they wanted to justify.

Why would you begin with an opinion on a single issue rather than a general worldview?

 

[1213]

....
How do Christians justify their book and doctrine supporting slavery? And you can't just say "that's the old testament", as if that somehow solves the problem. Can a Christian explain this massive problem?

All tax payers are slaves, if they must pay taxes. If you are really against slavery, you should be against taxation.

Old Testament has this:
The word that came to Jeremiah from Yahweh, after that the king Zedekiah had made a covenant with all the people who were at Jerusalem, to proclaim liberty to them; that every man should let his man-servant, and every man his maid-servant, who is a Hebrew or a Hebrewess, go free; that none should make bondservants of them, to wit, of a Jew his brother. All the princes and all the people obeyed, who had entered into the covenant, that everyone should let his man-servant, and everyone his maid-servant, go free, that none should make bondservants of them any more; they obeyed, and let them go: but afterwards they turned, and caused the servants and the handmaids, whom they had let go free, to return, and brought them into subjection for servants and for handmaids. Therefore the word of Yahweh came to Jeremiah from Yahweh, saying, At the end of seven years you shall let go every man his brother who is a Hebrew, who has been sold to you, and has served you six years, you shall let him go free from you: but your fathers didn't listen to me, neither inclined their ear. You were now turned, and had done that which is right in my eyes, in proclaiming liberty every man to his neighbor; and you had made a covenant before me in the house which is called by my name: but you turned and profaned my name, and caused every man his servant, and every man his handmaid, whom you had let go free at their pleasure, to return; and you brought them into subjection, to be to you for servants and for handmaids. Therefore thus says Yahweh: you have not listened to me, to proclaim liberty, every man to his brother, and every man to his neighbor: behold, I proclaim to you a liberty, says Yahweh, to the sword, to the pestilence, and to the famine; and I will make you to be tossed back and forth among all the kingdoms of the earth.
Jeremiah 34:8-17

Because of that I think people should not keep slaves anymore. Also, Bible teaches that we should love others as ourselves. I think, if person loves like that, he doesn’t want to keep slaves, even if it would be allowed.

 

[joe1776]

Why would you begin with an opinion on a single issue rather than a general worldview?

Well, for example, the need to feel superior to others appears to be a common human characteristic. So, seeing others as inferior drives the behavior to find a way to justify slavery.

But, Gregory, feeling no such need, would feel empathy for people enslaved. Thus, need to find a way to justify his moral position which is inconsistent with the teachings of Christianity.