Christians who reject the old testament and slavery

[Augustus]

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.

Do you believe if, as a child, he had been magically transported to a society where people were naturally unequal, there was no concept of a common humanity and that anyone who wasn't a member of the tribe was an enemy, he would still have opposed slavery?

 

[joe1776]

Do you believe if, as a child, he had been magically transported to a society where people were naturally unequal, there was no concept of a common humanity and that anyone who wasn't a member of the tribe was an enemy, he would still have opposed slavery?

What do you mean by "naturally unequal?" What standard are you using to measure human worth?

 

[sojourner]

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.

Because they provide a theological foundation within the context of the spiritual metaphor with which I work. Love, mercy, compassion, forbearance, loving-kindness, humbleness, faithfulness -- all are brought forward in the texts as traits to be desired. How we apply those traits in our present context is, I think, where you're sensing a disconnect?

 

[Augustus]

What do you mean by "naturally unequal?" What standard are you using to measure human worth?l

It's what many people believed in the past.

My point is that conscience often relies on cultural dimensions, and that which is 'instinctive' is really a product of a whole range of environmental and personal factors.

In addition, we may seek to rationalise what we 'feel', or we may override what we 'feel' via philosophical reasoning.

 

[joe1776]

It's what many people believed in the past.

My point is that conscience often relies on cultural dimensions, and that which is 'instinctive' is really a product of a whole range of environmental and personal factors.

In addition, we may seek to rationalise what we 'feel', or we may override what we 'feel' via philosophical reasoning.

From the hints you gave, I can tell that we have a major difference of opinion on our understanding of conscience. While it could be an interesting discussion, it's a tough topic to handle in brief, so I'd prefer to leave it for another time.

 

[Enoch07]

Your links are irrelevant to the OP's question because Christians are human, and all humans, Christian or not, have been gifted with a conscience. So, the question isn't "Did Christians favor the abolition of legal slavery?"

The question is "Did the Christians who favored the abolition of legal slavery do so because they were moved by their conscience or by the teachings of their faith?"

Since there are more than one hundred references to slavery in the Bible. and none condemn the practice, the correct answer to the question isn't in doubt.

The answer is in the links. But I'll try to simplify it for you.

It's a combination of both. A combination of their consciences and the teachings of Jesus in the new testament.

They (the Christian abolitionist) are no different than people like myself in this modern day who chose to focus on Jesus' teachings of love for our fellow man, even if they are LGBT for example.

Luke 23: 39-43 comes to mind.


39 And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.

40 But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?

41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.

42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.

43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.

Jesus was speaking to some criminals here. Even though they went against what the Bible teaches. Even though they broke the law. Jesus still forgave them while he was being killed, in the same manner as them. It's a powerful message when you think about it.

 

[sojourner]

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

I don't think immorality is particularly at issue in the statement. Cogency is what's at issue. At one time, there were laws governing how to drive buggys in congested areas. Those laws are no longer cogent to our current context. It's not that the laws become immoral; they simply no longer apply.

 

[joe1776]

Because they provide a theological foundation within the context of the spiritual metaphor with which I work. Love, mercy, compassion, forbearance, loving-kindness, humbleness, faithfulness -- all are brought forward in the texts as traits to be desired. How we apply those traits in our present context is, I think, where you're sensing a disconnect?

Alright, I see those good things in the Bible as well but I also see bad stuff, so it's hard for me to understand why you consider the text sacred. However, it isn't necessary that I see.

 

[sojourner]

Alright, I see those good things in the Bible as well but I also see bad stuff, so it's hard for me to understand why you consider the text sacred. However, it isn't necessary that I see.

"Sacred" simply means "set apart." It doesn't mean "better than." The texts are sacred, because they are set apart from other texts as those that are (as I said) "OK to read in church."

Remember that the stories were written by people with a vastly different world view, set of ethics, cultures, and problems than ours. Their view of who and what God is, was much different from ours. Much of the bible is mythic story, not meant to be taken literalistically. As with any mythic tale, hyperbole is often used as a literary device to make the points much larger, so they're easily seen. When "God killed all the babies of the enemy," it's mythic, not factual. The question we have to ask ourselves is: "Why did the writer write that -- what was the point he was making?" Usually, it's because God was protecting Israel in some way (which, from their perspective, was a good thing). We have the luxury of standing outside their perspective. They did not have that luxury. In that time and culture, "God saves" meant something vastly different than it means to us in the here and now.

 

[joe1776]

The answer is in the links. But I'll try to simplify it for you.

It's a combination of both. A combination of their consciences and the teachings of Jesus in the new testament.

Enoch, I regret that I can't find your answer persuasive.

It's hardly surprising that Christians could find scripture to support what was the right thing to do. But the question: How did they know what was the right thing to do? is the one that has to be answered truthfully. My answer is conscience, something that all humans share.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

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'.

But the characterization of Pilate is woefully historically inaccurate and the Romans didn't care what Jews thought.

Every class has slow and fast learners.

But you don't teach the slow ones that 2+2=5 just because they don't get the real answer.

For one, education would have needed to be universal. It wasn’t.

Again, I hold God to divine standards and can't stand it when people just write off His laziness.

Most people are clueless as to what is taught.

Yup. Jesus wasn't even dead yet and even HE said they weren't understanding him. Maybe I'm just weird, but you don't let the people with the lowest grades teach the class.

The Hebrew people 3500 years ago didn’t have access to prisons and the types of rehabilitation for criminals available today.

They would if God had bothered.

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

I don't see much evidence (to be fair, haven't been able to afford my antidepressants lately, so I'm in a bad mood) that people think too far beyond their own line of sight.

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

Do you pay your utility bills? Do you understand what taxes are? Sure, we can all be cynical about how our money is being used, but taxes are for services rendered, like roads and firefighters and stuff. Tax evasion isn't freedom, it's freeloading.

It's what many people believed in the past.

People still do.

 

[joe1776]

I don't think immorality is particularly at issue in the statement. Cogency is what's at issue. At one time, there were laws governing how to drive buggys in congested areas. Those laws are no longer cogent to our current context. It's not that the laws become immoral; they simply no longer apply.

You're using a false analogy. Some of the laws in the OT were immoral. That's why they were edited out in the NT.

 

[Windwalker]

Yup. Jesus wasn't even dead yet and even HE said they weren't understanding him. Maybe I'm just weird, but you don't let the people with the lowest grades teach the class.

Oh that's an awesome way to put it! I'm going to use that one myself now. Perhaps there is something to that other saying of Jesus, "Those that can't do, teach".

 

[74x12]

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?

The Law was for the day and time. I've covered this previously on this forum. It was a legal code for not just religious reasons but governing day to day life of a bronze age society. God wasn't trying to make a revolution and overthrow all of bronze age society. He was trying to begin something that would become greater and greater. As He gently led the people into better ways.

Jesus Himself said that one law was given "for the hardness of your hearts" not because it pleased God. That was the law allowing divorce. So apparently, not all the legal aspect of the Law pleased God, but He tolerated it for the time being.

However it was the righteousness that God was introducing through the Law that was so important. The Ritual aspect of the Law did not last forever because the new Covenant comes introducing spiritual reality rather than types and shadows. The ritual aspect is there to teach us about spiritual things.

But the spiritual righteousness of the Law is going on. Thou shalt Love the LORD your God and your neighbor as yourself. And as I said these ritual aspects foreshadowed coming things. It turns out the Torah is largely symbolic prophecy of spiritual things. If you want to learn about spiritual things that's a good way to learn it.

 

[sojourner]

You're using a false analogy. Some of the laws in the OT were immoral. That's why they were edited out in the NT.

Which ones? Remember, what may be immoral in one culture may be moral in another, depending on circumstances.

 

[sojourner]

They would if God had bothered

That’s not a valid argument. Theology seeks to understand the world as it is, from a spiritual perspective. God does things the way God does things, which is why the world is the way it is. We don’t know what would happen if God did things differently, and that’s not what theology seeks to understand.

 

[sojourner]

Enoch, I regret that I can't find your answer persuasive.

It's hardly surprising that Christians could find scripture to support what was the right thing to do. But the question: How did they know what was the right thing to do? is the one that has to be answered truthfully. My answer is conscience, something that all humans share.

As I said in another thread, the Bible writers didn’t just pull this stuff out of the air; it had been talked about long before being written down.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

God wasn't trying to make a revolution and overthrow all of bronze age society.

Why not?

He was trying to begin something that would become greater and greater.

That's a revolution, though, isn't it? He could've made it better just by copying the most moral laws from vastly superior civilizations at the time. He didn't.

Jesus Himself said that one law was given "for the hardness of your hearts" not because it pleased God.

How well did that work out for Him? Then He had to sacrifice His Son because people were jerks. If only there had been something useful to do earlier on. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure....

Thou shalt Love the LORD your God and your neighbor as yourself.

Unless you have chores to do. Then go kill a bunch of people, rape and enslave their women, and ....

God does things the way God does things, which is why the world is the way it is. We don’t know what would happen if God did things differently, and that’s not what theology seeks to understand.

Why is the study of Theos so uninterested in the lack of a Theos "theosing"?

 

[sojourner]

Why is the study of Theos so uninterested in the lack of a Theos "theosing"?

Why would we be interested in a world other than that which was created? Why would we be interested in “stuff God doesn’t do?”

 

[Enoch07]

Enoch, I regret that I can't find your answer persuasive.

It's hardly surprising that Christians could find scripture to support what was the right thing to do. But the question: How did they know what was the right thing to do? is the one that has to be answered truthfully. My answer is conscience, something that all humans share.

Persuasive or not it is truth. That is the best answer that I can give, considering I am not a Quaker from the 18th century.