God and slavery?

[Jeremy Mason]

So your description of "religion" doesn't actually hold for religion in general?

I concede the argument that all religions subscribe that scripture defines their religion.

I'm also sure that many would say that one or both of these facts do make him a Christian.

You would be hard pressed to find a few Christians that would buy this.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

The answer to the OP seems clear enough: humans create institutions like slavery. Humans appeal to divine authority to justify those institutions. Humans wrote the Bible.

Jeremy pointed out that Jesus didn't condone slavery in the NT....well, he didn't exactly speak out against it either, did he? It's strange that the Creator of the Universe would deliver wisdom to humanity without explicitly mentioning that the common practice of slavery was abhorrent, allowing it to continue for another 2,000 years. It's perfectly reasonable, OTOH, that human beings would hand down legends of a human moral teacher, dressed up with divine authority, who increased human wisdom incrementally.

And that's the key: sure, the Bible contains some great moral teachings. However, there are glaring omissions, some abhorrent stuff, and some incoherent stuff. That's because it was written by humans, thousands of years ago. In terms of clarity, wisdom, and coherence, basically any solid book today on ethical philosophy is a better guide for being a good person and structuring a good society than the Bible.

Every time I see an ad for "Bible study groups", I wonder what our society could accomplish if they were "Ethics study groups" or "Theories of democracy study groups"....instead of reading one book from the Bronze-age you read the best books from every age....instead of trying to torture every verse in Deuteronomy to conform with modern ethics and values, you reason about various claims, learn the best facts on the matter, and either accept or reject them.

 

[Father Heathen]

he is God, he can change his mind, he has several times, he wasnt at all happy with the NT so he even brought us the Quran

I could burn down an orphanage one day, and if I change my mind the next day, should all be forgiven and forgotten?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I could burn down an orphanage one day, and if I change my mind the next day, should all be forgiven and forgotten?

Only if this is a totalitarian regime and you are the dear leader. Everything the dear leader does is for our benefit, after all, even if the opposite seems manifestly true. His ways are higher than ours.

 

[Jeremy Mason]

Jeremy pointed out that Jesus didn't condone slavery in the NT....well, he didn't exactly speak out against it either, did he?

Strawman

instead of trying to torture every verse in Deuteronomy to conform with modern ethics and values, you reason about various claims, learn the best facts on the matter, and either accept or reject them.

Matthew 7: 9-12 (NIV)

9"Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? 11If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! 12So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Strawman

Could you please explain how that was a strawman? You did indeed say in an early post:

I disagree. Jesus never advocated slavery.

I pointed out, however, that Jesus never spoke out against slavery. Wouldn't you consider that a glaring omission at a time when slavery was rampant? It seems to me this can only be understood in terms of the Bible being an imperfect, human-authored attempt at improving (not perfecting) our ethical wisdom.

If I gave you a book on Ethics, and volume one articulated how slaves were to be treated and punished, and volume two said nothing about slavery.....well, could we really call that a perfect book on the subject of Ethics? Is there really nothing we could do to improve that book?

Matthew 7: 9-12 (NIV)

9"Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? 11If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! 12So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

Could you please explain what your point was here?

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Could you please explain how that was a strawman? You did indeed say in an early post:

I pointed out, however, that Jesus never spoke out against slavery. Wouldn't you consider that a glaring omission at a time when slavery was rampant? It seems to me this can only be understood in terms of the Bible being an imperfect, human-authored attempt at improving (not perfecting) our ethical wisdom.

If I gave you a book on Ethics, and volume one articulated how slaves were to be treated and punished, and volume two said nothing about slavery.....well, could we really call that a perfect book on the subject of Ethics? Is there really nothing we could do to improve that book?

Could you please explain what your point was here?

I wonder...why do men assume a spiritual mission is also political or to establish morals?

 

[Jeremy Mason]

Could you please explain how that was a strawman?

and

I pointed out, however, that Jesus never spoke out against slavery. Wouldn't you consider that a glaring omission at a time when slavery was rampant?

While Jesus may have not have spoken directly about his position on slavery, his actions spoke volumes. Jesus never owned slaves and Christians are to follow his example. Your strawman insinuates that since he didn't speak out against slavery, he endorsed it and that's not true.

Could you please explain what your point was here?

You said

instead of trying to torture every verse in Deuteronomy to conform with modern ethics and values,

and I pointing out that you don't have to "torture every verse". You only need to...

do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

This is the the Ethics that applies to all people and times.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

While Jesus may have not have spoken directly about his position on slavery, his actions spoke volumes. Jesus never owned slaves and Christians are to follow his example. Your strawman insinuates that since he didn't speak out against slavery, he endorsed it and that's not true.

I'm not saying Jesus endorsed slavery. What I'm saying is that the Bible would be vastly improved ethically by adding a few verses explicitly condemning slavery, and taking out the parts where God condones slavery in the OT. Because it could be greatly improved, he Bible is not the perfect, clearest and most coherent book on ethics. We have better books on the subject.

As for Jesus not owning slaves...you could make the exact same argument about pet ownership, since there is no mention of Jesus owning a dog, either.

and I pointing out that you don't have to "torture every verse". You only need to...

do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.​

This is the the Ethics that applies to all people and times.

Yes, if you pick out that verse and ignore all the others, then it's a good (if incomplete) ethical guideline, one that was stated by others (e.g. Confucious) thousands of years earlier. But this does not show that God is against slavery, it shows that the Bible is inconsistent, unclear, and imperfect. Slavery was condoned in the OT and never repudiated in the NT, which enabled the Biblical justification of slavery for another 2,000 years.

Check out these quotations from the 19th century:

[FONT=arial,helvetica]"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America.

[/FONT][FONT=arial,helvetica]"There is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many regulating it. It is not then, we conclude, immoral." Rev. Alexander Campbell

[/FONT][FONT=arial,helvetica]"The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example." Rev. R. Furman, D.D., Baptist, of South Carolina

[/FONT][FONT=arial,helvetica]"The hope of civilization itself hangs on the defeat of Negro suffrage." A statement by a prominent 19th-century southern Presbyterian pastor, cited by Rev. Jack Rogers, moderator of the Presbyterian Church (USA).

[/FONT][FONT=arial,helvetica]"The doom of Ham has been branded on the form and features of his African descendants. The hand of fate has united his color and destiny. Man cannot separate what God hath joined." United States Senator James Henry Hammond. 3

[/FONT][FONT=arial,helvetica]And a 21st century quote: "If we apply sola scriptura to slavery, I'm afraid the abolitionists are on relatively weak ground. Nowhere is slavery in the Bible lambasted as an oppressive and evil institution: Vaughn Roste, United Church of Canada staff.[/FONT]
​

Source: What the Bible says about slavery

Now, you may be right in that your position on slavery may be more parsimonious with all the verses of the Bible, taken together. But my point is that this debate shouldn't even be possible. A *perfect* book about ethics should make it absolutely, explicitly clear that an evil contemporary institution (e.g. slavery) is evil. But the Bible doesn't; it's not perfect. It's man-made.

And by the way, what did the Law and the Prophets and God have command the Israelites to do to the "others", namely the Canaanites, Midianites, and Amalekites? Did they follow the Golden Rule?

 

[Charity]

Slave practices were part of the culture in biblical days, the bible mentions no direct call to abolish it. The ethics of love do stand in opposition to slavery. The Bible also contains warnings concerning slavery. Paul often spoke of himself as a servant, or bondservant (slave) There were several different forms of slavery.

 

[kai]

I could burn down an orphanage one day, and if I change my mind the next day, should all be forgiven and forgotten?

remember he works in mysterious ways! you on the other hand are a mere mortal who should know better, so should be put in jail

 

[Jeremy Mason]

he Bible is not the perfect, clearest and most coherent book on ethics.

Did I say it was perfect? The actions of Jesus are what Christians should strive for, not the actions of past generations.

And by the way, what did the Law and the Prophets and God have command the Israelites to do to the "others", namely the Canaanites, Midianites, and Amalekites? Did they follow the Golden Rule?

They did as God commanded them and He had a better grasp of the situation than either of us do.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Many mean well, but spiritual truths mystify them.

Jesus' mission was a spiritual one, not to lay down the law or comment on them or even to establish morals, but to reveal to man through words and his living the personality of the Father and man's relation to Him. If men know God as their Father and themselves as his children, how can man know his fellows as anything but his brothers? Armed with this knowledge and understanding, men are free to evolve a morality of their own choosing and in their own way. Armed with this new knowledge of his relation to God, man is lifted up by an act of the ultimate "Prime Directive."

How presumptuous for a child to tell the all-wise Father what is best for his children!

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Did I say it was perfect? The actions of Jesus are what Christians should strive for, not the actions of past generations.

I'm sorry, I shouldn't have assumed you thought the Bible was perfect.....are you saying you agree with me, that it is not perfect?

They did as God commanded them and He had a better grasp of the situation than either of us do.

Jeremy, please don't take this the wrong way, but I think if you carefully consider what you've said here, you'll see as I do, that it is an incredibly wicked statement.

First, it is a statement that can be--and has been--used throughout history to justify the most despicable atrocities. In fact that's precisely what you've done here: you've justified genocide (albeit probably an a-historical one against the Canaanites, etc.)

Second, the rank-and-file Israelite massacring Midianites was not doing as God commanded him. He was doing as his human leaders commanded him, human leaders who claimed the orders came down from God. Those claims are recorded in the Bible, as written by humans. This distinction is incredibly important. The ancient Pharaohs did the same thing, claimed to be a god, or a demi-god, or the only conduit to God. Medieval monarchs did it too: they were God's representatives on Earth. Their followers were not following God, their followers were following human leaders who *claimed* to speak for God.

To blur this distinction is essentially to form the basis of a totalitarian ideology. The leader's (or leaders') authority is unchallengable because he is God, or god-like, or has a private hotline to God. He always must be obeyed because his commands are always for our own good, even when they are "mysterious" to us. His power and control is absolute. He knows everything, and he is entitled to share as much or as little of that knowledge with us as he chooses. Even when we're being asked to commit unspeakable atrocities, we must not hesitate or doubt, because it must be for a good reason if the leader is asking us to do it. Any time something bad happens, it's because we failed to be obedient and loyal enough to the leader. Any time something good happens, it's because of the leader's grace, mercy, wisdom, etc. All thanks and praise be to him...etc.

This is the basis of totalitarian regimes throughout history, from contemporary North Korea, to Stalinist Russia to the Islamic empires to, apparently, the Kingdom of Israel.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

How presumptuous for a child to tell the all-wise Father what is best for his children!

How presumptuous of me to contradict the all-wise Father, in my childlike arrogance and naivete, by suggesting that rape and mass murder is wrong. Let us praise the all-wise father, who always knows what is best for his children, and glorify his various names: Kim Jong, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Hirohito, Allah, Yahweh, Ramses I and II, ....

 

[Sunstone]

How presumptuous of me to contradict the all-wise Father, in my childlike arrogance and naivete, by suggesting that rape and mass murder is wrong. Let us praise the all-wise father, who always knows what is best for his children, and glorify his various names: Kim Jong, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Hirohito, Allah, Yahweh, Ramses I and II, ....

I've got to spread the frubals around before I can frubal you again Spinks, but you just made me wish I could give you a double!

 

[Jeremy Mason]

I'm sorry, I shouldn't have assumed you thought the Bible was perfect.....are you saying you agree with me, that it is not perfect?

Yes, but one needs to gleen the message of love, integrity and equality for all people as Jesus thoroughly exemplified.

Jeremy, please don't take this the wrong way, but I think if you carefully consider what you've said here, you'll see as I do, that it is an incredibly wicked statement.

First, it is a statement that can be--and has been--used throughout history to justify the most despicable atrocities. In fact that's precisely what you've done here: you've justified genocide (albeit probably an a-historical one against the Canaanites, etc.)

First and for most, I strongly do not condone genocide. When I read such Scripture it is an extremely difficult issue, including Hell, for me to fathom. That is why I said it is up to Christians to follow Jesus' example and not the generations of the past. Jesus led no military campaign and even took issue with Peter for striking/severing the Roman guards ear, and immediately restored the guard to his prior condition. This change from an eye for an eye to turn the other cheek is paramount when discussing OT and NT theology. The OT was very cause and effect, where NT is cause and reflect.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

How presumptuous of me to contradict the all-wise Father, in my childlike arrogance and naivete....

Yes. It is. Your values presume the reality of a good above and beyond human likes and dislikes. Your belief in a good presumes there is something more to life than what your senses tell you, something that is inconsistent with the concept of an uncaring universe and you are undoubtedly troubled by it. Your mind is in a whirl.

The wise man universalizes his heart. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Those who aspire to greatness must learn to humble themselves.

Error (evil) is the penalty of imperfection. The qualities of imperfection or facts of misadaptation are disclosed on the material level by critical observation and by scientific analysis; on the moral level, by human experience. The presence of evil constitutes proof of the inaccuracies of mind and the immaturity of the evolving self. Evil is, therefore, also a measure of imperfection in universe interpretation. The possibility of making mistakes is inherent in the acquisition of wisdom, the scheme of progressing from the partial and temporal to the complete and eternal, from the relative and imperfect to the final and perfected. Error is the shadow of relative incompleteness which must of necessity fall across man's ascending universe path to Paradise perfection. Error (evil) is not an actual universe quality; it is simply the observation of a relativity in the relatedness of the imperfection of the incomplete finite to the ascending levels of the Supreme and Ultimate.

These are excerpts from The Urantia Book. The emphasis is my own. It says something I figured out before I became acquainted with the book: evil has no basis in reality; it is a phenomenon of space and time, which is but the shadow of the Eternal. "And no actuality can ever be adequately comprehended by an examination of its shadow. Shadows should be interpreted in terms of the true substance."

 

[kai]

How presumptuous for a child to tell the all-wise Father what is best for his children!

yes how presumptuous indeed! daddy knows best , now take your punishment! what a joke

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Ah, such an in-depth analysis and retort to what I said just above your post. How refreshing! So much different than the usual skeptical response!