Slavery in the Bible: more than meets the eye?

[A Vestigial Mote]

Hi

Their is fundamental misunderstanding around the sacrifice of Isaac account. It is a deeper and more substantial lesson than merely god being a bully.

The "cultural norm" amongst the Canaanite polities was for one who wished a position of responsibility to sacrifice his first born son.... they continued this practise down to Hannibals day and the final destruction of Carthage. 100 000's of children's bones discovered around the Tophet's of Molech and Baal bear this out. Actually it is believed that Hannibal Barca had an older brother, or possibly a slave, sacrificed by his Father Hamilcar in the 200's bce. That's 2000 years after Abraham and they were still doing it.

Abraham being asked by his God to sacrifice his son would have seemed the "normal" thing to do in the cultural milieu of the time. The point that is being made, and would have been understood by his contemporaries, was that the God of Abraham DID NOT require the sacrifice of human children.

And yet here we are, in modern times, with The Bible containing a story of how Abraham was about to kill his son and is praised by God for it. Those are the facts. Not everyone knows this "context" you went into - and I would argue that even if they did, and even if you are correct that this story inspired those of the time to question or others to condemn the practice of child sacrifice, in modern times the lesson to be learned here is that you should be willing to do just about ANYTHING for God - even if it is terrible. And that God will reward you for your loyalty. These are lessons that I would think Islamic terrorists would be very interested in. Don't you agree?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Trust me - my emotions are completely and totally in check in "real life". You'd be completely surprised, I'd imagine, to know how reigned in I keep them. I go for logic and rationality first, assess the situation, come to a logical and completely defensible position and stick to it until (if) I am proved to be wrong. I don't get dramatic, don't yell, don't "break things." Those types of reactions are, in my estimation, signs of abject weakness. If a person can't control their emotions in a conversation, then it usually only strengthens my resolve to stay calm, composed and collected. And guess who comes back asking forgiveness for their behavior when the conversation abruptly ends because they become so ticked off at my rationality (and, more likely, the fact that they can't maintain theirs) that they give up and walk away? It so happens that online I have found that being entirely calm and collected doesn't actually spark people to think. If words are too drab, and don't contain a spark of excitement, they are glossed over, or not even read at all.

There are, quite simply, facts about what I would and would not do. Given a sudden command by a God who has been absent throughout my entire life, my response would easily and quickly be "Who is this joker?" And I feel it is precisely my intellectual calibration that holds human beings as FAR more important than any God concept. God concepts are a dime a dozen. No... let me correct that bit there... they are worthless. Zero of anything of worth for every 6-8 billion god concepts. How's that? That's seems a lot more correct in my estimation.

It's funny how theists say these things as if they matter. There are so many problems with this scenario that it doesn't just get some "Free pass" no matter how you slice it. For example - God wasn't going to have Abraham actually do it - which is one reason it is so ridiculous in the first place. God DID apparently know that it would have been wrong for Abraham to kill his son - so He never intended to let him do it. But don't you see how impossibly stupid that is? Let me break it down:

1. God decides to test Abraham by asking Him to do something even He knows is wrong
2. Abraham complies and decides to do this very wrong thing
3. God stops him so that he doesn't complete the sacrifice
4. God praises Abraham for being willing to do something wrong, just because God asked.

Horrible. Just horrible. If anything, what God had proven was that his followers were mindless zealots, incapable of thinking for themselves and acting on their own instincts. As a leader, is that what you would want? Would you want the people under you to never question your motives and just blindly carry out your orders, expecting that if you ordered them, they must be the best thing to be doing? Isn't that exactly what we chastise dictatorships for?(think Hitler's troops here, and their willingness to commit atrocities against the Jews - and their later attempts to be exonerated because they were "just following orders")

Honestly, I feel that it only takes thinking about these things just a little bit to see how horrible they are. How horrible the prescriptions in The Bible are. How horrible God is if He actually exists and The Bible is accurate in its stories and descriptions of Him. This is not stuff that is "good" for humanity... which is why I don't like it. Doesn't get more simple than that.

By the way - I don't believe in Satan either. So you can stop telling me how he ruined your life any time - unless you can come up with some compelling evidence for his existence as well - which we both know that you cannot do. Oh well... I can't be bothered to care, honestly. Just another unsubstantiated claim that ranks only as highly on the "deserves-attention-meter" as the wildest of conspiracy theories. I honestly don't think that theists understand how wholly some of us do not, at all, need religion, or belief in some "divine power" in our lives. I don't need it at all. Not at all. Not even close. You seriously have no idea - it is hilarious to me when people try and pull the "you know you secretly believe" crap with me. Just a joke. And one that isn't even funny at that.

I'm following what you're saying re: Abraham/Issac. Please consider my perspective:

1) I was told lifelong that the absolute worst thing I could do as a Jew was to become a Christian
2) I knew lifelong that Abraham was commanded to sacrifice Issac
3) I'm reading the passage and I see the Issac asks where the lamb is for the sacrifice
4) A ram, not a lamb, appears, and Abraham says God will provide HIMSELF, THE LAMB
5) Lifelong I wasn't told (by Jews who didn't read the NT) how closely the NT parallels the OT stories
6) There are hundreds of such stories, frankly, I think thousands of such pictures

Recall also that the Bible shows Abraham's despondency at the dreadful order from God, then says, AFTER THREE DAYS, Abraham looked up (to see Mount Moriah from the south, I was there in February...) and then tells his team of helpers ISSAC AND I WILL RETURN IN A BIT - obviously, Abraham "got it" that God would either relent or would resurrect Issac since Issac was foretold to bear a line of kings...

God stops Abraham, as the scripture says, "What can I give for my sin? I can't give my firstborn for it?" because He gave HIS Son

Recall also that the Temple was built on Mount Moriah where Abraham was going to sacrifice Issac, and that Jesus Christ DIED ON THIS SAME MOUNTAIN. Most people, even most Christians, are unaware that the lamb of God died near the Garden Tomb, which is north of old Jerusalem on the SUMMIT OF MOUNT MORIAH...

I'm likewise tested by God often, especially when I'm open to hearing that inner voice--you want me to share the gospel with THAT person, God? Often, I go over there to see they're on the phone and unable to even chat with me--but God tests me.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I say you lose your moral compass when you value invisible deities over human beings. Same goes for defending slavery.

If your moral compass is high on people, shouldn't you show me far more respect and deference, instead of trolling my posts and sending me six assaults on my posts a day, frequently being rude and arrogant on threads where I respond to other people? Sincere spiritual seekers IMHO are put off by the atheist trolls at RF. Stop being the blind leading the deaf and go share your atheism at the atheist hellfire club, like where you tell Christians to go share their stuff in the churches. Or else put me on ignore.

 

[SkepticThinker]

If your moral compass is high on people, shouldn't you show me far more respect and deference, instead of trolling my posts and sending me six assaults on my posts a day, frequently being rude and arrogant on threads where I respond to other people? Sincere spiritual seekers IMHO are put off by the atheist trolls at RF. Stop being the blind leading the deaf and go share your atheism at the atheist hellfire club, like where you tell Christians to go share their stuff in the churches. Or else put me on ignore.

Please outline how I have:

1) Trolled your posts
2) "Assaulted" you by posting to you
3) Being rude and arrogant

I've asked this before, and you've had to admit you were full of it.
But please do outline here how responding to your posts and challenging your assertions on a debate forum is an "assault" toward you.

Or, (and here's an amazing thought), you could instead respond to the points being made and quit whining about how you're being "assaulted" by having your baseless assertions questioned.
Like now, it would be great if you'd just respond to the point. I don't put people on ignore.

 

[tas8831]

And yet here we are, in modern times, with The Bible containing a story

Yes, the bible contains stories.
Sometimes, those stories are about real people, and real places, and maybe even a few real events. Things with corroboration from non-biblical sources.

Regarding this 'kill your kid' command from Jehovah - any corroboration?


Didn't think so.

 

[tas8831]

Sincere spiritual seekers IMHO are put off by the atheist trolls at RF.

Oh, I don't know - I'd think that they might be put off by the documented dishonest/trollish posting habits of a,sadly, large contingent of self-professed Christians on here.
You know the type - those that refuse to admit even trivial errors... Those that pontificate on matters they know little about... those that have blatant double-standards. that sort of thing.

 

[tas8831]

The next verses (in both gospels) is Peter, James and John SEEING something come. Do you remember what they saw?

Nope, I don't really believe these tall tales anyway. No evidence, no corroboration. Uncertain authorship. Etc.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Yes, the bible contains stories.
Sometimes, those stories are about real people, and real places, and maybe even a few real events. Things with corroboration from non-biblical sources.

Regarding this 'kill your kid' command from Jehovah - any corroboration?


Didn't think so.

I'm with you there - probably no reality to this tale. I'm more concerned with the picture it paints. A would-be murder and would-be child sacrifice perpetrator is told "good job" by God because he was willing to go through with the deed. This may actually display some grand amount of "faith" and loyalty to God from Abraham - but loyalty that strong carries with it terrible and horrifying implications - which this story itself also displays! If anything, I am wholly against people carrying on with that level of loyalty to anything - most especially when they can't even demonstrate the existence of that thing!

 

[Moz]

Right - how silly of me to have thought that the Hebrew deity - the one TRUE deity, He Who CREATED the ubiverse and all that, had no ability to proscribe slavery.


No - because it makes no sense at all to me. But please - use the bible to support the bible, won;t you?

Wow - great parenting!


Not powerful enough, I guess...
Right...

Such a great "story" wherein rules for slavery are given - and a great unwitting admission.


Were I a creator god, I could have willed it thus and all would be good.

But for some reason, that cruel thug deity of the Hebrews seems to enjoy human pain and suffering.


Again, we see you "defending" this thug-god in essence by saying 'thats the way it was back then.'

Back then when only the Hebrews knew of the one true god... Because this one true god was merely the Hebrew's tribal deity.

Got it!


Well, I am a mere mortal! I am NOT the CREATOR GOD of the UNIVERSE! I did not CREATE a man from dust!

You believe that the Hebrew tribal deity was real - you worship it, even - this creator God with unlimited power - yet tsk tsk me for not having a better plan???

Do you think about these things at all?


Oh, so I am supposed to come up with a plan that your creator GOD of the universe couldn't...
Well, nice that you admit how low your expectations of your CREATOR GOD are.


Well...

I see little reason to keep going.

You cannot see the absurdity of your desperate position.

You will have us believe that your all-powerful, all-knowing CREATOR GOD did nothing about slavery because, meh, that's the way it was back then.

How sad that Jehovah's worshippers are left making fool so f themselves in His defense.

Hi
It is obvious that you have no interest in discussing the bible within its own context. Your "if God allows evil then God is weak" argument is at the entry level of religious criticism so i hope you are proud to have fought your fight and won.
Peace.

 

[Moz]

And yet here we are, in modern times, with The Bible containing a story of how Abraham was about to kill his son and is praised by God for it. Those are the facts. Not everyone knows this "context" you went into - and I would argue that even if they did, and even if you are correct that this story inspired those of the time to question or others to condemn the practice of child sacrifice, in modern times the lesson to be learned here is that you should be willing to do just about ANYTHING for God - even if it is terrible. And that God will reward you for your loyalty. These are lessons that I would think Islamic terrorists would be very interested in. Don't you agree?

Hi
I think you are stretching things a lot to get to the point where it is a story encouraging people to become terrorists.
Well at least you now know some of the context and maybe considering the long term good effect it had on the Hebrew polity, No Child Sacrifice, you could view it in a more realistic light instead of trying to imply that it might encourage terrorists as well. I have never heard Abraham/isaac used as justification for a terrorist atrocity.

There are plenty of accounts in your "modern folklore" about parents who sacrificed themselves and their children giving "The Last Full Meausure of Devotion" for Love of country.

There are a series of lectures on the physchological meanings of the genesis stories by proffessor jordan peterson, they are on utube. If you are actually interested in a secular view going into what our ancestors were doing when they compiled these particular stories that is an excellent resource.
Peace

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Hi
I think you are stretching things a lot to get to the point where it is a story encouraging people to become terrorists.

This is not, at all, what I said. I was merely pointing out that ANYONE engaged in doing anything typically considered "bad" and using religious justification and citing "loyalty to God" or His commands as their principle rationalization is engaged in the same kind of thinking as a terrorist who is willing to bomb people to prove their loyalty to their God. And what I am also saying is that, given the account of Abraham and Isaac in The Bible, anyone can easily point to that story and feel justified in their course of action because God approved of Abraham's willingness to perform dastardly acts in His service, and communicated to him to go about the business in the first place. Who are you to say that God didn't actually communicate to them that they needed to do whatever it is they have done? You purport to know the mind of God? Is that it? You know who He communicates with and when? Is that what you claim?

No. If you accept this CRAP then you have no basis upon which to stand and denounce anyone else's claims about God or what He is or is not doing. However, if you simply let the person know that they have to demonstrate the TRUTH of their claims about God before you will accept them, that's a whole new ballgame. One in which you don't have to put up with morons and completely brainless dolts who point to God as their justification for things. You throw the idiots in jail until they produce the evidence of their claims. Simple.

There are a series of lectures on the physchological meanings of the genesis stories by proffessor jordan peterson, they are on utube. If you are actually interested in a secular view going into what our ancestors were doing when they compiled these particular stories that is an excellent resource.

Stories are fun for trying to weasel out moral lessons the author believes they have hidden in there sometimes, but beyond that they don't serve much purpose beyond entertainment. Maybe I'll check out the video, but I don't know what "psychological meanings" is in reference to - what does this even mean? I have also been exposed to Jordan Peterson and his wishy-washy thought processes quite a few times. I don't trust him. I could find some particularly choice bits of stupidity from him in particular debates I've seen that I probably remember enough to be able to search up on YouTube. Things that display an incredible lack of logical thought pattern from him. He does seem to have some interesting insight into certain social disparities and the psychological differences in human archetypes (gender, race, etc.), but that's about all... he seems to. From what I have witnessed he mostly just talks "from the cuff" - without a lot of support beyond saying what sounds good or seems entirely plausible. Missing a lot of the why's and wherefore's most of the time.

 

[Moz]

This is not, at all, what I said. I was merely pointing out that ANYONE engaged in doing anything typically considered "bad" and using religious justification and citing "loyalty to God" or His commands as their principle rationalization is engaged in the same kind of thinking as a terrorist who is willing to bomb people to prove their loyalty to their God. And what I am also saying is that, given the account of Abraham and Isaac in The Bible, anyone can easily point to that story and feel justified in their course of action because God approved of Abraham's willingness to perform dastardly acts in His service, and communicated to him to go about the business in the first place. Who are you to say that God didn't actually communicate to them that they needed to do whatever it is they have done? You purport to know the mind of God? Is that it? You know who He communicates with and when? Is that what you claim?

No. If you accept this CRAP then you have no basis upon which to stand and denounce anyone else's claims about God or what He is or is not doing. However, if you simply let the person know that they have to demonstrate the TRUTH of their claims about God before you will accept them, that's a whole new ballgame. One in which you don't have to put up with morons and completely brainless dolts who point to God as their justification for things. You throw the idiots in jail until they produce the evidence of their claims. Simple.

Stories are fun for trying to weasel out moral lessons the author believes they have hidden in there sometimes, but beyond that they don't serve much purpose beyond entertainment. Maybe I'll check out the video, but I don't know what "psychological meanings" is in reference to - what does this even mean? I have also been exposed to Jordan Peterson and his wishy-washy thought processes quite a few times. I don't trust him. I could find some particularly choice bits of stupidity from him in particular debates I've seen that I probably remember enough to be able to search up on YouTube. Things that display an incredible lack of logical thought pattern from him. He does seem to have some interesting insight into certain social disparities and the psychological differences in human archetypes (gender, race, etc.), but that's about all... he seems to. From what I have witnessed he mostly just talks "from the cuff" - without a lot of support beyond saying what sounds good or seems entirely plausible. Missing a lot of the why's and wherefore's most of the time.

HI
If, as it seems you beleive, the bible is just a collection of stories that "men" put together then they chose particular stories for a reason. If you do not like the term "pshyschological meanings" then we could use dawkins term " Biological meme" and the same issues arise. In the view of social/darwinists these are incredibly old traditions passed down by mankind for a reason through thousands of years of telling and retelling.
They chose these particular tropes for a reason and just as we can sit and parse Homer and The illiad from the perspective of a story being honed through retelling for centuries and then finally written as the definitve account the same can be done to the biblical narrative to identify the "biological memes" that the story encode.

While i do understand your comments about Peterson, he is a showman doing his schtick, his univeristy lectures are somewhat different to his public lectures which tend to the "self help" spectrum a little, but people need help. I was not endorsing him in particualar as some sort of authority but as an option to see the narratives in a deeper context. There is no doubt that thinkers like doestyevsky, neitzsche and jung have much to say on architypes and architypical hereos and give insight into understanding one aspect of the argument.
Whatever you think of the bible it was put together the way it was for a reason, the stories were recorded for a reason, our ancestors told and retold these particular stories for a reason. The people reading or being told these stories around the campfire would obviously discuss and disect these stories, much like we are doing now, to discern what they were really about.
......................
I live in australia. .. The indigenous here have what they call "The dreamtime stories". These are their "biological memes" encoded into their legends. NOBODY today is alowed to dismiss these "Sacred Stories" about the "spiritual connection" of their ancestories with the "spirit of the Land" as mere entertainment. Try that over here and the left will slaughter you as an insentive bigot.
The stories of the "dreamtime" are very simple tellings of things in mythological terms that you can then sit with an aborigine for hours as they tell you how these simple principles were extrapolated into the principles of life. The biblical stories, from the perspective of social darwinists, are the exact same phenomenon. Simple stories containing principles that can be extracted and applied in all sorts of areas.
................
And finally. Anything can be twisted. Could a terrorist read the story in the way you say as a justification to '"obey god if he tells me to kill" yeah i suppose he could. Misreading things has caused much trouble in the world. A misreading of the US constitution from someone in the future may lead them to beleive that some people are really only 2/3rds of a person. (That's sill on the books isn't it) That would be a fair reading yes? The Us constitution would seem to be one of the most evil documents ever and written by monsters if we take that view. It could spawn all sorts of misdeeds by a political figure in a 1000 years harking back to the "founding fathers" for his own reasons and not including all the nuanced debate and context of the times.
Peace

 

[BilliardsBall]

Please outline how I have:

1) Trolled your posts
2) "Assaulted" you by posting to you
3) Being rude and arrogant

I've asked this before, and you've had to admit you were full of it.
But please do outline here how responding to your posts and challenging your assertions on a debate forum is an "assault" toward you.

Or, (and here's an amazing thought), you could instead respond to the points being made and quit whining about how you're being "assaulted" by having your baseless assertions questioned.
Like now, it would be great if you'd just respond to the point. I don't put people on ignore.

Let's see, most recent post of yours to me:

"admit you were full of [sh]it"

"quit whining"

"your baseless assertions"

Not how I talk to people in academia, at home, in forum debates, etc.

WHY WOULD I WANT TO EVEN TALK TO SOMEONE WHO SAYS MY HUNDREDS OF POSTS ARE BASELESS ASSERTIONS?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Oh, I don't know - I'd think that they might be put off by the documented dishonest/trollish posting habits of a,sadly, large contingent of self-professed Christians on here.
You know the type - those that refuse to admit even trivial errors... Those that pontificate on matters they know little about... those that have blatant double-standards. that sort of thing.

I have double standards?

Is human slavery sometimes evil or always evil? If always, do you accept absolute morals and their creator? How could absolute morals exist, that haven’t evolved over time, without a moral creator rather than moral evolution? Or will you maintain this double standard?

If we’re evolved animals without souls, why do you eat eggs from chickens treated “inhumanely”? Why do you eat beef or pork from animals that are treated worse than human slaves? Or will you maintain this double standard?

If slavery is a subjective evil (no creator) can I eat people if I’m on a desert island without other resources? Why or why not? Or will you maintain this double standard regarding evolution and behavior?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Nope, I don't really believe these tall tales anyway. No evidence, no corroboration. Uncertain authorship. Etc.

So why did you ask? Because you have a double standard, misquoting the Bible where it suits you, calling the whole book a fraud where I show you to be baseless in your assertions.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Let's see, most recent post of yours to me:

"admit you were full of [sh]it"

I didn't say that.

"quit whining"

You do a lot of this. Rather than focusing on the point under discussion, you take discussion down this tangent - like the one we're currently on.

"your baseless assertions"

How is this an attack?
You are making baseless assertions which is the very reason why I am questioning your claims in the first place.

Not how I talk to people in academia, at home, in forum debates, etc.

We're on a debate forum board. Please do not pretend like you are Mr. Super Polite around these boards. You expressed the idea that you think gay people are "extra broken." That's volumes more insulting than being told you're whining about something, wouldn't you say?

WHY WOULD I WANT TO EVEN TALK TO SOMEONE WHO SAYS MY HUNDREDS OF POSTS ARE BASELESS ASSERTIONS?

I think the better question is, why are you making baseless assertions in the first place?
Also, I don't think I've said all of your posts are baseless assertions - just the ones that are.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I have double standards?

Is human slavery sometimes evil or always evil? If always, do you accept absolute morals and their creator? How could absolute morals exist, that haven’t evolved over time, without a moral creator rather than moral evolution? Or will you maintain this double standard?

If we’re evolved animals without souls, why do you eat eggs from chickens treated “inhumanely”? Why do you eat beef or pork from animals that are treated worse than human slaves? Or will you maintain this double standard?

If slavery is a subjective evil (no creator) can I eat people if I’m on a desert island without other resources? Why or why not? Or will you maintain this double standard regarding evolution and behavior?

We can make moral judgments by rationally assessing the consequences of our actions in reality and determining what effects those actions have on me, and on those people around me with whom I must share the planet.
I submit that this is what anyone who is at all interested in morality is already doing when attempting to make moral decisions.
It's not as difficult as you make it out to be and you don't even need to invoke evolution at all.

 

[sojourner]

Isn’t this interesting on slavery.

Duet 23:15 “… “You shall not give up to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. He shall dwell with you, in your midst, in the place that he shall choose within one of your towns, wherever it suits him. You shall not wrong him…”

You help return lost property in the last chapters but when it comes to slaves… you let them stay free.

Freedom for slaves built into the law and in more than one way. The year of jubilee when slaves were set free another example. n

The US could use the concept of Jubilee where student loan debt is concerned.

Just sayin’...

 

[MikeDwight]

I slave whoever I want. Students, Principles, people meet me to get slaved, we should assume. Coworkers!

 

[BilliardsBall]

I didn't say that.


You do a lot of this. Rather than focusing on the point under discussion, you take discussion down this tangent - like the one we're currently on.


How is this an attack?
You are making baseless assertions which is the very reason why I am questioning your claims in the first place.


We're on a debate forum board. Please do not pretend like you are Mr. Super Polite around these boards. You expressed the idea that you think gay people are "extra broken." That's volumes more insulting than being told you're whining about something, wouldn't you say?


I think the better question is, why are you making baseless assertions in the first place?
Also, I don't think I've said all of your posts are baseless assertions - just the ones that are.

Your correct response: Apologize for using ad homs and calling me a whiner.