Christians who reject the old testament and slavery

[PureX]

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

The story is an ideological lesson. Not a history lesson.

 

[serp777]

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.

Thats just an ad hoc post rationalization. If this is the case the bible is morally interior and no one should listen to it. You're also proposing moral relativism and that morals depend on time and culture. I think thats false. Slavery was always wrong. Also how do you determine which parts of the bible are morally correct now for our current time? What if I still think its moral to burn witches? And if a society is like one of the ones in the old testament today, do you think we should intervene to stop slavery? It might be moral for their culture. Too many problems and the apologetics are weak.

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

This is a bad idea for numerous reasons. People often have differences on how they want to be treated. A better version would be to treat your neighbor as they want you to treat them. But thats not perfect either. Morality can't simply be reduced to cliches.

 

[serp777]

Here is some info so that you can educate yourself on the matter.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Abolitionism

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism_in_the_United_States

http://americanabolitionist.liberalarts.iupui.edu/brief.htm

Enjoy!

This isn't a justification.

 

[serp777]

The problem arises from two assumptions, first, an assumption of sola scriptura. We simply assume that Jesus looked only to the Bible to instill righteousness. Second, we simply assume (or insist) that everything in the Bible is equally morally valid and legitimate. We assume that our morals are absolute and immutable, and cannot change based on context. We assume that the Bible is perfect in both its revelation and it’s moral judgment.

Yet, we find Jesus willing to move outside the written texts. Numerous times, Jesus says, “It is written... but I tell you...” Also, we find that there is a group of law givers and interpreters who go beyond textual boundaries. Both the gospel writers and Paul insist that the heart be right, not adherence to biblical laws. When Jesus cited the Law, he did so with the proviso that the greatest Law was “love God,” and the second was “love neighbor,” and that the rest of the written law and prophets depended upon these two.

Paul, in bringing the faith to a different culture, had to re-interpret many cultural norms written in the Law, in order to have the faith make sense to a different culture. Paul talks about a circumcision of heart, as opposed to a physical circumcision, for example.

Suffice to say that the premise of the Bible being the only source of moral guidance, and the immutability of written moral codes imposes rules upon us that were never meant to be imposed. Love trumps everything else.

We have discovered that all humans, regardless of race, religion, gender, orientation, or social status are equal, due to the overarching principle of love. Therefore, due to love, it is impossible to keep slaves and follow that principle.

Further, we assume that Jesus transcends his cultural context. He does not. Jesus was a product of his time and place, and taught out of that paradigm.

Additionally, we ignore that biblical slavery in Israel at that time was a far different dynamic than slavery of 200 years ago in the US. Slaves in ancient Judea had legal protections and rights. Debt slaves could only be held for a certain length of time, had to be treated as members of the slaveholder’s family, and, upon release, had to be granted “parting gifts” of food, clothing, tools, and some land, do that they could subsist. This is a far different picture of slavery Jesus “advocated” than the one we normally think of. I’m not convinced Jesus would condone the type of slavery we fostered here.

Therefore, we are not particularly constrained by biblical injunction, but can weigh texts against the principle of love. We can draw from sources other than the Bible to inform our morals, and we can judge when a teaching needs to change in order to meet the present context. 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.

We assume that our morals are absolute and immutable, and cannot change based on context. We assume that the Bible is perfect in both its revelation and it’s moral judgment.

So leviticus 21 and exodus 25 are totally correct. Its also accurate when Jesus told slaves to obey their masters and keep the commandments.

When Jesus cited the Law, he did so with the proviso that the greatest Law was “love God,” and the second was “love neighbor,” and that the rest of the written law and prophets depended upon these two.

Actually he said the most important part of salvation was to keep the commandments.

We have discovered that all humans, regardless of race, religion, gender, orientation, or social status are equal, due to the overarching principle of love. Therefore, due to love, it is impossible to keep slaves and follow that principle.

You've either shown a serious contradiction in Jesus' teachings or Jesus or the bible was wrong when it said "Slaves obey your masters".

This is a far different picture of slavery Jesus “advocated” than the one we normally think of. I’m not convinced Jesus would condone the type of slavery we fostered here.

So Jesus would condone some kinds of slavery? Also what would be wrong with American slavery according to the bible. You're allowed to beat your slaves so long as they dont die within a few days, and Jesus specifically references the old commandments and laws in exodus.

Also I would submit that no matter what, owning another person as property is wrong, even if its "nice slavery".

 

[serp777]

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

Slavery is absolutely justified in the new testament. Jesus said to keep the commandments and for slaves to "obey their masters". Both the new and old testament are consistent on slavery.

 

[serp777]

Joseph in Genesis called his brothers enslaving him as evil.
Sometimes God has laws restraining a bad situation from being worse.

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

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.

So moral relativism--things can be moral depending on the time and culture. Also then you've exposed a contradiction. Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25 absolutely contradict Genesis in this case. Also just because enslaving God's messenger was immoral doesn't mean that all slavery is immoral in the bible.

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.

This is an equivocation fallacy. Me and the bible are specifically talking about owning other people as property. That kind of slavery. Not this metaphorical nonsense about being a sin to our vices.

 

[Enoch07]

This isn't a justification.

Nobody has to justify anything. To you or anyone else. But it is well documented history.

 

[serp777]

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.

SO moral relativism. Morality depends on culture and time. In some cultures rape might be right and moral instead of murder because it would be better than murdering all of the women instead. Ridiculous.

Also then the bible and Quran are worthless then. They can't teach us anything because they only apply to a culture that is far out of date.

 

[serp777]

Nobody has to justify anything. To you or anyone else. But it is well documented history.

No duh, I obviously have no magical powers to make you justify it. But coming here to post some links like you made a great contribution is kind of ridiculous.

Its also well documented how bad Christian apologetics are surrounding slavery, and that if you were to take your book to its logical and clear interpretation, then slavery is allowed and not immoral.

 

[74x12]

This is a bad idea for numerous reasons. People often have differences on how they want to be treated. A better version would be to treat your neighbor as they want you to treat them. But thats not perfect either. Morality can't simply be reduced to cliches.

You're really smarter than Jesus. I can see that right off. I need the book of "serp777" instead of that ol' holy Bible book.

Look wisdom is like the thinnest liquid. In other words it flows more than water. You can't contain it in exactitude. You can hardly put it into words. You can't bog it down with rules and legalize. That stops the flow. It loses it's punch. That is why wisdom is best conducted through proverbs and similes. Through generalities and not exact precise statements. Yes many proverbs or wise sayings over generalize. They do it on purpose so that you will grasp and understand more easily the essence of the wisdom being conveyed.

Do we drink a goblet? No, we drink from a goblet. So we drink wisdom from wise sayings.

And Loving your neighbor as yourself is not a cliche. Not sure why you think that.

Thats just an ad hoc post rationalization. If this is the case the bible is morally interior and no one should listen to it. You're also proposing moral relativism and that morals depend on time and culture. I think thats false. Slavery was always wrong. Also how do you determine which parts of the bible are morally correct now for our current time? What if I still think its moral to burn witches? And if a society is like one of the ones in the old testament today, do you think we should intervene to stop slavery? It might be moral for their culture. Too many problems and the apologetics are weak.

You're confusing the mercy of God for "moral relativism". The mercy of God was towards them then and He overlooked many faults. And it's toward us now and He still overlooks many faults. So don't pretend you're in a better place morally speaking than they were back then. Society is worse than ever. Yet God shows mercy.

Anyway if they obeyed the whole law including to love their neighbor as themselves, then they would not treat their slaves bad. So there is that also.

What you think is moral has nothing to do with this discussion. So if you burn people how is that from God? Unless you keep the whole Law of Moses perfectly in every way. Both outside and inside. That means even your thoughts are pure and holy at all times; then go ahead burn witches if it pleases you. Just like Jesus said let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

 

[74x12]

Its also well documented how bad Christian apologetics are surrounding slavery, and that if you were to take your book to its logical and clear interpretation, then slavery is allowed and not immoral.

Well documented by what cherry picking goofball? Do you realize that the abolition movement was largely headed up by Christians? I think a lot of atheists blatantly cherry pick passages to come up with silly interpretations.

The very law itself "Love your neighbor as yourself" means that technically you should release a slave if they want it and you know you yourself would want it. So yeah it's technically allowed but it's also technically not okay to treat anyone badly slave or free!

 

[Enoch07]

No duh, I obviously have no magical powers to make you justify it. But coming here to post some links like you made a great contribution is kind of ridiculous.

Its also well documented how bad Christian apologetics are surrounding slavery, and that if you were to take your book to its logical and clear interpretation, then slavery is allowed and not immoral.

If you read the links or knew the history you would not have to come here and ask the question or ask for justification. That why the links are there. It's all plainly written out and easily understood.

 

[Dawnofhope]

SO moral relativism. Morality depends on culture and time. In some cultures rape might be right and moral instead of murder because it would be better than murdering all of the women instead. Ridiculous.

Also then the bible and Quran are worthless then. They can't teach us anything because they only apply to a culture that is far out of date.

The Divine Physician has his finger on the pulse of mankind and in His unerring wisdom prescribes the remedy. The remedy for tribalism is not the same as the remedy for the global community in the 21st century.

The reality of tribalism was either finding a way of coexisting or war. War usually meant members of the defeated tribe were killed.

 

[joe1776]

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

In the Torah, God ordered women, but not men, killed for adultery. Children killed for disobedience. And blasphemy was a capital crime.

I can't recall offhand the three other offenses that required the death penalty that would be head shakers given today's morality.

 

[joe1776]

The Divine Physician has his finger on the pulse of mankind and in His unerring wisdom prescribes the remedy. The remedy for tribalism is not the same as the remedy for the global community in the 21st century.

The reality of tribalism was either finding a way of coexisting or war. War usually meant members of the defeated tribe were killed.

Adrian, do you agree that human behavior attempts to satisfy human needs? If so, why would you expect the behavior you're calling "tribalism" to satisfy a different need today than it did 3,000 years ago? And, if it's the same need, why a different remedy?

I think we humans have a need to feel superior to others which causes a wide range of arrogant-competitive behavior. Tribalism is one of them.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Adrian, do you agree that human behavior attempts to satisfy human needs? If so, why would you expect the behavior you're calling "tribalism" to satisfy a different need today than it did 3,000 years ago? And, if it's the same need, why a different remedy?

I think we humans have a need to feel superior to others which causes a wide range of arrogant-competitive behavior. Tribalism is one of them.

Tribalism needs to be considered when thinking about the origins and development of both Judaism and Islam.

According to the Torah, Moses freed His people from Egyptian captivity, and led them towards the land of Canaan. He provided laws that prepared the Hebrew peoples for conquest of the land and to establish a civilisation. The 12 tribes of Israel were eventually united and reached their pinnacle under King David. The Israelites had fought neighbouring peoples to eventually establish and secure their nationhood.

Muhammad on the other hand united a disparate group of Arabic tribes on the Arabian Peninsula. He had to defend the newly established Muslim tribe against the Quarysh tribe who sought to destroy the Muslims. It was kill or be killed.

In answer to your question, the needs of these times were vastly different from today and much more directed towards the basics of food, water, and shelter. However there was exposure and engagement for both the Jews and the merchant Arabic tribes with relatively advanced cultures. This exposures enabled acceptance, albeit with great resistance and pain, of a more advanced approach to living. The worldview, moral outlook, and laws of the Torah and Quran were significantly more advanced than they had been accustomed.

Of particular importance was the movement from paganism to monotheism. Why was this important? Instead of worshipping a bewildering pantheon of gods that related to animism and the natural world they worshipped a God that brought laws and Teachings that enabled movement beyond tribalism to nation and empire building. The spread of Muhammad’s Teachings would lead to the Islamic Golden Age.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age

The Islamic Golden Age brought unprecedented development in the arts and sciences that would contribute greatly to igniting the European Renaissance. Through this period of intense artistic, scientific, and intellectual development enabled Western Civilisation to flourish shedding off constraints of the past and embracing new approaches to administering our affairs. Human rights, universal education, the equality of gender, the essential Oneness of humanity, democracy and international cooperation are all distinguishing features of this modern age in contrast to bygone eras.

As a child learns to count and add as a foundation to learning algebra and calculus, so humanity needed to pass through stages of infancy, childhood, and adolescence before approaching adulthood.

The Teachings of God in this day are to foster the requirements of the age we live in nowadays, clearly vastly different from the times of both Muhammad, Christ and Moses.

Some Teachings are universal though and humility is one of them. To imagine we can dispense with Gods Teachings completely or apply the old to the New is contrary to humility and wisdom.

 

[joe1776]

Tribalism needs to be considered when thinking about the origins and development of both Judaism and Islam.

According to the Torah, Moses freed His people from Egyptian captivity, and led them towards the land of Canaan. He provided laws that prepared the Hebrew peoples for conquest of the land and to establish a civilisation. The 12 tribes of Israel were eventually united and reached their pinnacle under King David. The Israelites had fought neighbouring peoples to eventually establish and secure their nationhood.

Muhammad on the other hand united a disparate group of Arabic tribes on the Arabian Peninsula. He had to defend the newly established Muslim tribe against the Quarysh tribe who sought to destroy the Muslims. It was kill or be killed.

In answer to your question, the needs of these times were vastly different from today and much more directed towards the basics of food, water, and shelter. However there was exposure and engagement for both the Jews and the merchant Arabic tribes with relatively advanced cultures. This exposures enabled acceptance, albeit with great resistance and pain, of a more advanced approach to living. The worldview, moral outlook, and laws of the Torah and Quran were significantly more advanced than they had been accustomed.

Of particular importance was the movement from paganism to monotheism. Why was this important? Instead of worshipping a bewildering pantheon of gods that related to animism and the natural world they worshipped a God that brought laws and Teachings that enabled movement beyond tribalism to nation and empire building. The spread of Muhammad’s Teachings would lead to the Islamic Golden Age.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age

The Islamic Golden Age brought unprecedented development in the arts and sciences that would contribute greatly to igniting the European Renaissance. Through this period of intense artistic, scientific, and intellectual development enabled Western Civilisation to flourish shedding off constraints of the past and embracing new approaches to administering our affairs. Human rights, universal education, the equality of gender, the essential Oneness of humanity, democracy and international cooperation are all distinguishing features of this modern age in contrast to bygone eras.

As a child learns to count and add as a foundation to learning algebra and calculus, so humanity needed to pass through stages of infancy, childhood, and adolescence before approaching adulthood.

The Teachings of God in this day are to foster the requirements of the age we live in nowadays, clearly vastly different from the times of both Muhammad, Christ and Moses.

Some Teachings are universal though and humility is one of them. To imagine we can dispense with Gods Teachings completely or apply the old to the New is contrary to humility and wisdom.

It's hard to believe that society's moral level was raised by the early texts of the Abrahamic religions as you believe. In those texts, God gives several orders to kill for kinds of misbehavior that are head shakers today.

I agree that humanity has made moral progress. But you are giving religion credit for it. How can you do that when legal slavery was abolished despite the fact that the sacred texts of religion condoned it? Do you give religion the credit for the advancement of women's rights or those of homosexuals despite the biases contained in the sacred texts?

 

[Dawnofhope]

It's hard to believe that society's moral level was raised by the early texts of the Abrahamic religions as you believe. In those texts, God gives several orders to kill for kinds of misbehavior that are head shakers today.

I can see that it is hard for you to make sense of some of the most severe laws in the Torah and Quran.

I agree that humanity has made moral progress. But you are giving religion credit for it.

I believe the Teachings of Krishna, Moses, Buddha, Christ, and Muhammad have made significant contributions.

How can you do that when legal slavery was abolished despite the fact that the sacred texts of religion condoned it?

In the NT it was mostly Paul who simply accepted the status quo of slavery that had existed since the earliest days of humanity. However Paul introduced a nore advanced moral dimension for both slaves and masters to consider.

It may be helpful to consider how Christian apologetics view writings about slavery in the NT.

https://bible.org/article/some-initial-reflections-slavery-new-testament

Do you give religion the credit for the advancement of women's rights or those of homosexuals despite the biases contained in the sacred texts?

Similarly consider what the Christian apologetics have to say about the NT and role of women to appreciate how Christianity advanced the role of women at that time.

https://bible.org/seriespage/6-new-testament-church-role-women

It needs to be considered that Muhammad in his time advanced the role of women as did Moses. These are major topics of discussion in their own right.

Considering the role of religion in both promoting and hindering slavery and then the rights of woman and homosexuals in modern times are certainly weighty topics. Maybe to keep it our discussion manageable, we stay with the topic of the OP.

 

[sojourner]

So leviticus 21 and exodus 25 are totally correct. Its also accurate when Jesus told slaves to obey their masters and keep the commandments.



Actually he said the most important part of salvation was to keep the commandments.



You've either shown a serious contradiction in Jesus' teachings or Jesus or the bible was wrong when it said "Slaves obey your masters".



So Jesus would condone some kinds of slavery? Also what would be wrong with American slavery according to the bible. You're allowed to beat your slaves so long as they dont die within a few days, and Jesus specifically references the old commandments and laws in exodus.

Also I would submit that no matter what, owning another person as property is wrong, even if its "nice slavery".

You neglected to actually read the post, didn’t you? Or else you’re deliberately lifting sections out of context and twisting them.

 

[sojourner]

In the Torah, God ordered women, but not men, killed for adultery. Children killed for disobedience. And blasphemy was a capital crime.

I can't recall offhand the three other offenses that required the death penalty that would be head shakers given today's morality.

Yeah those are difficult to defend. Remember, though, that we’re dealing with Bronze Age mentality, not post-modern mentality.