Why does my God allow children to die? Is he evil?

[1robin]

Two thoughts:

- for this "tame" version of slavery you're talking about, the Bible still allows owners to beat their slaves to death as long as the slave takes at least a few days to die from their wounds.

This is a good example of your distorting the Bible to support your presuppositions. If a Man beat his slave and the slave eventually died the loss of the slave was the punishment. In the most common example of this, a wealthy man would agree to pay off the debts of a person and that person had to work it off. The striker was now out a hundred shekels or so plus a worker. That was deemed enough. I have also read that this was in the context striking someone without intent to injure and includes accidental events. I never said God made slavery pleasant. I said he made an existing practice much more benevolent and did so for two reasons. It was already an integral part of all cultures and there was no well fare or other social programs. I am sure it still was an unpleasant experience.

- regardless of how well the slave is treated (though I sure wouldn't want to be a slave under the system you're praising), you're still talking about owning other people as property. There are plenty of passages in Leviticus and Deuteronomy that read like "you may do _____ to your slaves, for they are your property."

First please stop asserting that I am some kind of fan of slavery. This is cheap theatrics and an appeal to the absurd designed to provide your case with a moral high ground it can't acquire by merit. Slaves were property as was agreed by both parties. The owner usually made a substantial investment on behalf of the slave and the slave was under "contract" to do X. It is quite clear God took a literal sense of property and pared it down quite a bit. He allowed punishment and an owner/property arrangement to endure but he gave strict rules that were intended to ensure justice or at least a much more just arrangement. God did not invent slavery, he found it existent and gave some rules to make it more just. It is not God's primary mission to fix all the crap our fallen natures produce. I think he intentionally allows evil as an example of what a fallen nature results in. In fact it says that divorce and I think slavery as well were tolerated because of OUR SINFULLNESS. God hates slavery and divorce yet tolerates or allows for it because we are so screwed up that it is necessary at times.

The alternative would have been to stop people from owning other human beings as property. Exactly what "harm" do you think this would have caused? Since you say it's easy to see, I'm sure you could give us some examples.

If a slave has his depts. paid off and is not tied to his master by more than an arbitrary agreement then there is a great temptation to bolt. This was an economic contract of great significance to bronze age cultures. If God had indeed had the same idea or intent concerning slaves being property why did he mandate they be set free after 6 or seven years. You can't reconcile the facts and your claims God is evil. He may have not abolished some things you consider evil but that does not make him evil. Evil has a very important role in his purpose.

And none of this changes the fact that according to the Bible, God endorsed slavery.

Find me a single verse where God initiated slavery where it did not exist or one where God says slavery is good or that he likes it.

Also, you used the analogy of divorce before: that God allowed it as a temporary measure to address certain circumstances. The New Testament has Jesus declaring that this really was a temporary measure, and people shouldn't divorce any more. Can you point me to the verse where Jesus or any other Biblical figure gives a similar declaration that slavery is no longer acceptable?

No, because slavery was a part of the culture that existed in NT times. God many times comments on things that are unpleasant or that are abhorrent like wars or calamity, this does not mean that God likes or prefers these things beyond necessity. I can show those slavery laws obsolete by the fact that all OT law is obsolete after Christ came.
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross
http://bible.cc/colossians/2-13.htm
This is a complex issue and I do not want to start another topic when this one can't be resolved. However it is the general consensus that all old covenant law (with the possible exception of the Decalogue) were abolished when Christ ratified the new covenant with his blood.

If you really think that any form of owning other people as property is "benevolent", then I'd say your moral sense is so warped that it's useless.

I really wish you would stick with what I actually said. I said that there were benevolent advantages to both parties and that God made a preexistent concept more benevolent than it was. I never said that specifically technically owning people is inherently benevolent. It could be argued as such if what slavery was at that time was more certain.

Exactly which Old Testament laws did 19th Century American slavery break, and how did they break them? How much would they have had to dial things back for them to be A-OK by the rules that God set out? Please be specific.

The old south slavery was not operating within the OT covenant but it would have broken almost all of them.

Like I mentioned above, there are many Biblical passages where they also explicitly state things about the slave/servant like "he is your property." In these cases, it's unreasonable to interpret the word as "servant" as opposed to "slave".

That would depend on what servant meant in that culture.

Also, I think it's worth pointing out that our own word "servant" has changed a bit over the centuries, too. IMO, a first-century concept of servitude would be closer to serfdom (which was itself a form of slavery) than to the modern idea of freely chosen employment.

Agreed and exactly what I was indicating above. If you were as reasonable over all as you were here there would be no contention IMO.

 

[Ingledsva]

Most religions out there have a "written Word."

Should we believe without proof that they are relaying God's word?

Good point Ingledsva, the best way to know if one is being taught truth is by comparing the teachings of Jesus with what they are being taught. Afterall 2 cor 11:12-15 is true.

You missed the point.

Christian writings are just more writings - they have no more authenticity then any other religion's writings.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

True or false there is no evidence of this. I am the only one who has posted original languages (first anyway).

I was unaware of a previous question like this. Of course I have, but why is it necessary. I primarily use evolutionists concerning evolution. I use historians concerning history. Why should I use non Christians concerning Christianity. This is another double standard that frustrates me. I believe that even the secular NT historian consensus to be that in a general sense OT slavery was not consistent with US slavery by a long shot. Most historians of every flavor agree with the Bibles historical claims. Only in supernatural ones do they differ. Mainly because all the ones who think one way become Christians and all the ones that rule out the supernatural beforehand are not. It is a strange dichotomy involved here. Even if you could prove all Christians are biased that would make all non-Christians even more biased.

I was thinking a while ago that the only exit ramp left against the claims I have made was to say the Jews were not under Roman law. I see I am not disappointed. I could almost have these debates with myself. Rome did initially grant Israel much of a free hand. The time period we are discussing is about 100AD. By then Israel had rebelled many times and Rome had clamped down severely on them. They had devastated Jerusalem and even destroyed the most sacred temple in Palestine. Conditions were dread full and as usual many of the Jews decided to basically become Romans. They had done the same thing with the Greeks. The Romans had taken away all or almost all Hebrew freedom and imposed not just Roman law but Roman hostile frontier law. I am quite sure some Christians acting more on their Roman allegiance than their Christian allegiance had slaves and a few I am sure probably mistreated them. Imagine God looking down and seeing the current situation. He knew his apostles and people would run into the situation concerning slavery. He had two choices that I can see. Set them free or tell them his primary purpose was spiritual and even if they were physically locked in he would make them spiritually free and one day rectifies the situation and justice would be served. If he set them free he was turning loose a slave in the middle of a community controlled by the most hostile empire towards slavery on Earth. The refuge cities no longer existed and Rome would have killed them all and the apostles who were spreading the message of freedom. As usual what you would suggest God should do would have been a complete disaster. You must remember that since the fall God intervention is by far the rare exception not the rule. His mission is not to fix this world until judgment day. BTW without God you have no restitution and justice, just pointless misery and eventual heat death.

In a rolodex on your computer. Just kidding. I was just noticing how you seem to have a machine gun full of every claim used against God I have ever heard and maybe even a new one or two. You are definitely impotently but prolifically equipped for a mission you consider vital.

I have never claimed nor is there any reason to claim translations are perfect. That is not even intuitive or expected. Like most stuff from God it is given pure and man is left to do what he will with it. The issue of cultural language use is common in every textual debate in most religions. I find it all together rational and fitting that cutural flavor is incorporated in scripture. I do not see any problem here. BTW if you have researched comparative religion why do you seem to suggest I invented this very common and well known issue.

If Bull and LOL were removed from your vocabulary you would have little to say, but at least it could not help but be more accurate. I showed what those verses mean and they are no help to your cause. Anything beyond that is unimportant to me.

Wow both in one sentence. Are you copying and pasting these words. You know the mere assertion these words are used for does nothing to make them true. I reject every claim made about the insuffeciency of my claims without good evidence and I have not even seen any bad evidence.

You apparently don't understand that it was some later scribe who translated these verses and added "he" himself. It is not in the original verses as God revealed them. Unless you think I worship the almighty 7th century scribe I have no idea what you are talking about. The word "he" was part of what the original word Shalach was translated into. It was not gained from another word it came from that word and is not accurate. He did not exist in God's revelation. A word that meant to free in general was given. You point fails. By the way please quit using Bull. It is dishonorable, if you can't help but be offensive at least rotate the words used. I do not want to be insulted and bored at the same time.

What answers. Bull and LOL is the core of your argumentation.
In comparison with no God it certainly is, in any ultimate sense of the words. Without him there is no ultimate meaning, purpose, morality, or destination. There is only transitory arbitrary meanings and the only destination is heat death. As the deplorable but occasionally honest Dawkins said very well:

“In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.” p.133
http://withalliamgod.wordpress.com/existence-of-god/dawkins-deluded-logic/

Thank God Dawkins is as ultimately wrong about this as he is about all his theological nonsense and even some of his biological claims. Calling God evil, if this is what is left when he is rejected it is like hating the United States' oppression, and deciding to move to North Korea to escape.

You continue to be proven wrong by myself, and others, - yet you continue to repeat the same information over and over (in bulk) as if it will magically become true.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is a good example of your distorting the Bible to support your presuppositions. If a Man beat his slave and the slave eventually died the loss of the slave was the punishment.

This doesn't really help your position.

First please stop asserting that I am some kind of fan of slavery. This is cheap theatrics and an appeal to the absurd designed to provide your case with a moral high ground it can't acquire by merit.

Dude... you're the one describing slavery as "benevolent". The only one asserting that you're a fan of slavery is you.

In fact it says that divorce and I think slavery as well were tolerated because of OUR SINFULLNESS. God hates slavery and divorce yet tolerates or allows for it because we are so screwed up that it is necessary at times.

"You think"? Please point me to a Bible verse that says that God hates slavery. Just one.

You can't reconcile the facts and your claims God is evil. He may have not abolished some things you consider evil but that does not make him evil. Evil has a very important role in his purpose.

IOW, God's good as long as you consider things like slavery good. This is the moral relativism I was talking about at the start of this tangent.

Find me a single verse where God initiated slavery where it did not exist or one where God says slavery is good or that he likes it.

I'll give you two passages:

Deuteronomy 20:10-14 - God gives a general instruction to enslave women and children of cities that do not surrender:

10 “When you draw near to a city to fight against it, offer terms of peace to it. 11 And if it responds to you peaceably and it opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall do forced labor for you and shall serve you. 12 But if it makes no peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it. 13 And when the Lord your God gives it into your hand, you shall put all its males to the sword, 14 but the women and the little ones, the livestock, and everything else in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as plunder for yourselves. And you shall enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the Lord your God has given you.

Numbers 31:1-12, 25-47 - where God commands Moses to attack and plunder the Midianites, and then commands Moses to enslave the Midianite captives:

The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 2 “Avenge the people of Israel on the Midianites. Afterward you shall be gathered to your people.” 3 So Moses spoke to the people, saying, “Arm men from among you for the war, that they may go against Midian to execute the Lord's vengeance on Midian. 4 You shall send a thousand from each of the tribes of Israel to the war.” 5 So there were provided, out of the thousands of Israel, a thousand from each tribe, twelve thousand armed for war. 6 And Moses sent them to the war, a thousand from each tribe, together with Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest, with the vessels of the sanctuary and the trumpets for the alarm in his hand. 7 They warred against Midian, as the Lord commanded Moses, and killed every male. 8 They killed the kings of Midian with the rest of their slain, Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba, the five kings of Midian. And they also killed Balaam the son of Beor with the sword. 9 And the people of Israel took captive the women of Midian and their little ones, and they took as plunder all their cattle, their flocks, and all their goods. 10 All their cities in the places where they lived, and all their encampments, they burned with fire, 11 and took all the spoil and all the plunder, both of man and of beast. 12 Then they brought the captives and the plunder and the spoil to Moses, and to Eleazar the priest, and to the congregation of the people of Israel, at the camp on the plains of Moab by the Jordan at Jericho.

[...]

25 The Lord said to Moses, 26 “Take the count of the plunder that was taken, both of man and of beast, you and Eleazar the priest and the heads of the fathers' houses of the congregation, 27 and divide the plunder into two parts between the warriors who went out to battle and all the congregation. 28 And levy for the Lord a tribute from the men of war who went out to battle, one out of five hundred, of the people and of the oxen and of the donkeys and of the flocks. 29 Take it from their half and give it to Eleazar the priest as a contribution to the Lord. 30 And from the people of Israel's half you shall take one drawn out of every fifty, of the people, of the oxen, of the donkeys, and of the flocks, of all the cattle, and give them to the Levites who keep guard over the tabernacle of the Lord.” 31 And Moses and Eleazar the priest did as the Lord commanded Moses.

32 Now the plunder remaining of the spoil that the army took was 675,000 sheep, 33 72,000 cattle, 34 61,000 donkeys, 35 and 32,000 persons in all, women who had not known man by lying with him. 36 And the half, the portion of those who had gone out in the army, numbered 337,500 sheep, 37 and the Lord's tribute of sheep was 675. 38 The cattle were 36,000, of which the Lord's tribute was 72. 39 The donkeys were 30,500, of which the Lord's tribute was 61. 40 The persons were 16,000, of which the Lord's tribute was 32 persons. 41 And Moses gave the tribute, which was the contribution for the Lord, to Eleazar the priest, as the Lord commanded Moses.

42 From the people of Israel's half, which Moses separated from that of the men who had served in the army— 43 now the congregation's half was 337,500 sheep, 44 36,000 cattle, 45 and 30,500 donkeys, 46 and 16,000 persons— 47 from the people of Israel's half Moses took one of every 50, both of persons and of beasts, and gave them to the Levites who kept guard over the tabernacle of the Lord, as the Lord commanded Moses.

No, because slavery was a part of the culture that existed in NT times.

And the New Testament didn't change the existing culture at all, right? I must have forgotten that modern-day Christians still practice ritual circumcision, keep kosher, and keep Saturday as their day of rest. :sarcastic

God many times comments on things that are unpleasant or that are abhorrent like wars or calamity, this does not mean that God likes or prefers these things beyond necessity. I can show those slavery laws obsolete by the fact that all OT law is obsolete after Christ came.

Considering all the "slaves, obey your worldly masters" stuff Paul gives in the Epistles, I think that Paul disagrees with your interpretation.

This is a complex issue and I do not want to start another topic when this one can't be resolved. However it is the general consensus that all old covenant law (with the possible exception of the Decalogue) were abolished when Christ ratified the new covenant with his blood.

So Jesus struck down all those rules that you say made slavery "benevolent"? Hmm.

The old south slavery was not operating within the OT covenant but it would have broken almost all of them.

Such as? Can you give some examples of Old Testament rules that were commonly broken by slave owners in the pre-Abolition United States?

Agreed and exactly what I was indicating above. If you were as reasonable over all as you were here there would be no contention IMO.

I think you're missing my point. I think that the Bible does endorse what we would consider pretty heinous types of slavery, but even if we do the mental gymnastics needed to interpret the term in these passages to mean "servant" instead of "slave", then at best we'd be talking about something like serfdom, which is still a form of slavery, and still pretty heinous.

 

[Copernicus]

Robin is always going to express outrage at being accused of trying to justify slavery. All he was saying was that it was the best of all possible worlds. Westphalien Dr. Pangloss would have understood his argument perfectly.

 

[Ingledsva]

Have you ever been to where these people live. I traced Pizarro's route through Peru and have been to Mexico. I have stood on the slabs of rock where people were burned alive and in a room where they were skinned alive. Even most tour guides descended from the Inca I have met do not make excuses for what they did as you are doing. One I met outside of Trujillo at the mud city of Chan Chan said he was thankfull the spanish came, even though they dug up his dead ancestors and stole their gold jewlery. I literally hate revisionist history these days. It is one of the worst forces used to obscure truth and substitute preference, and it serves no one. As in all cases where proven archeology, eyewitness testimony, and obvious fact is denounced as cliché there is always a personal preference and presupposition involved. What personal connection do you have in this case that causes you to reject all of history and rewrite it the way you wish? You’re not a die hard, Neil Young fan, or an descendant of Montezuma are you ? Just kidding

Christianity seems to have the monopoly on revisionist history.

You keep repeating the evil other religions did - while playing Not-so - with the evil your own did.

Christians burned people alive. Christians skinned people. Christians did all kinds of torture. Christians tossed infants alive into ovens that turned to keep them alive and screaming longer as the flesh stuck to the sides and was torn off them. In front of their parents - whom were then tossed in!

Have you bothered to read about your own religion's atrocities?

*

 

[1robin]

You missed the point.

Christian writings are just more writings - they have no more authenticity then any other religion's writings.

*

Yes they do.

 

[1robin]

You continue to be proven wrong by myself, and others, - yet you continue to repeat the same information over and over (in bulk) as if it will magically become true.

No, you simply assert that I am wrong. If you provide any reasoning at all, it is flawed, biased, stripped of its actual context, and inconsistent with the thousands of plainly evident benevolent teachings of the God you call evil. There for there is no need to add anything new until you counter what I have.

 

[1robin]

This doesn't really help your position.

First I have since found many explanations of this and most seem to claim this is not concerning a beating with intention to harm but to scold or punish or purely accidental. This is accidental in nature. Second since in most cases this man had already paid off the man's debt and apparently the servant was not fulfilling his contract. Third, the man has lost his money paid on behalf of the slave and has additionally lost the servants services as well he is deemed to have lost enough. This is the verse by the way or is there a different one you are using.
New International Version (©1984)
the one who struck the blow will not be held responsible if the other gets up and walks around outside with his staff; however, he must pay the injured man for the loss of his time and see that he is completely healed. “If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property

Dude... you're the one describing slavery as "benevolent". The only one asserting that you're a fan of slavery is you.

I have never said anything about what I think about slavery nor have I ever even hinted that slavery as we think of slavery is benevolent, and I will not be accused of it again. I said God took slavery that already existed and made it into a more benevolent practice closer to servitude.

"You think"? Please point me to a Bible verse that says that God hates slavery. Just one.

The Bible is not a rolodex with instruction for every concept in history. You must use COMMON SENSE and the over all narrative of the Bible to discern the Character of God. NO one that provided the only foundation for the equality, sanctity, and value of every man loves slavery. Jesus said:
New Living Translation (©2007)
"The Spirit of the LORD is upon me, for he has anointed me to bring Good News to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim that captives will be released, that the blind will see, that the oppressed will be set free,
I will let a little known man who had more to do with ending slavery than any mortal who ever lived say it for me:
“I know there is a God, and that He hates injustice and slavery. I see the storm coming, and I know that His hand is in it. If He has a place and work for me, and I think He has, I believe I’m ready. I am nothing, but Truth is everything.”
Abraham Lincoln, during his first presidential campaign

IOW, God's good as long as you consider things like slavery good. This is the moral relativism I was talking about at the start of this tangent.

Nope, if you realize that there was no well fare, no credit doctors, no food banks, no Medicare then an arrangement that benefitted both parties even though not optimal would be relatively good. How good, is relative. The fact that it was good is not.

I'll give you two passages:
Deuteronomy 20:10-14 - God gives a general instruction to enslave women and children of cities that do not surrender:

First this can't be general because it was cancelled when Christ died even if it was in effect then. However lets give this some context.
20:15 Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations.
20:16 But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:
20:17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:
20:18 That they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against the LORD your God.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/dt/20.html
As you can see he gets very specific in the verses you did not include. He also states the reason for this which I have already alluded to. Slavery existed in every culture on Earth at that time. In what culture did he institute slavery where it did not previously exist?

Numbers 31:1-12, 25-47 - where God commands Moses to attack and plunder the Midianites, and then commands Moses to enslave the Midianite captives:

Again slavery already existed. I will point out something I learned a while back. The standard practice in these wars of annihilation practiced in various cultures at the time, the victors killed all the enemy. They did so to stop a reemergence of rebellion, as a message to others, and to avoid wasting resources on them. Instead God says to incorporate them into the Hebrew servitude institution instead of leaving them without food and sitting in smoking rubble. We can get into combatant slavery if you wish, I think it was harsher than typical servitude but it sure is better than killing them or abandoning them to starve or steal to survive. Continued below:

 

[1robin]

And the New Testament didn't change the existing culture at all, right? I must have forgotten that modern-day Christians still practice ritual circumcision, keep kosher, and keep Saturday as their day of rest.

What Christians do is many times not what God commands. Circumcision is no longer required but is healthier than not circumcising boys, Saturday is not the day 90% of Christians worship, no Christian I ever heard of does anything Kosher. Where did you get this stuff?

Considering all the "slaves, obey your worldly masters" stuff Paul gives in the Epistles, I think that Paul disagrees with your interpretation.

NT slavery is a whole different animal. I have already covered this in detail. I hope it was with another person. NT slavery is truly harsh slavery. It was mandated by Roman law. Palestine was controlled by Rome and in NT times Rome's rule was severe. They hated and guarded against slave revolts ever since Spartacus. There were no longer cities of refuge and runaways were instantly hunted down and killed. God's command here is to prevent slaves from think they were no longer required to serve and bolt. They would have been killed and the apostles would have as well for promoting this escapism. God is primarily concerned with getting us into heaven not making us happy in this life and allows the status quoe to remain in place many times as an example of just how screwed up we are. This was not a commentary on slavery as much as on what the apostles should do when they encountered Roman slavery.

So Jesus struck down all those rules that you say made slavery "benevolent"? Hmm.

Yes, all OT Levitical and legalistic laws are no longer in effect. Some argue that the Decalogue is still in effect but that is uncertain. IN effect God took law from something carved in rock or written on paper and wrote in the Christians heart. Of course being imperfect we obey it no better.

Such as? Can you give some examples of Old Testament rules that were commonly broken by slave owners in the pre-Abolition United States?

Not releasing them after 6 years for one. Not being punished for killing them even if a law existed for it.

I think you're missing my point. I think that the Bible does endorse what we would consider pretty heinous types of slavery, but even if we do the mental gymnastics needed to interpret the term in these passages to mean "servant" instead of "slave", then at best we'd be talking about something like serfdom, which is still a form of slavery, and still pretty heinous.

It is either serfdom or slavery. There is no gymnastics needed. All ten accepted commentators suggest servant. I have yet to see a Biblical scholar say it was anything like old south slavery.

This whole thing can be summed up quickly as I am getting burned out on the issue.
1. God did not institute slavery. He modified something that already existed.
2. Every indication is that OT slavery was beneficial to both sides and most of the time voluntary.
3. NT slavery was harsh and Roman. God only said what to do or say when it was encountered because if the apostles set them free, both the slaves and apostles would have been hunted down and killed.
4. God overwhelmingly acts through natural law and societal norms. He abandoned us to them when man fell and they are to be examples of our sickness.
5. God may even have sufficient moral grounds for allowing completely and clearly evil things to exist. You simply have no way to determine that.

You simply can't allow this to be true even when the vast majority of evidence and scholarship indicates it is true. You will not give God the benefit of the fact much less the doubt. I can and do. If God loves slavery instead of just putting up with a more benevolent form of it, why didn't his greatest and purist revelation (CHRIST) enslave anyone, instead of claiming to set captives free? 90% of the Bible is a clear refutation of the 10% of it that you are exploiting the ambigous nature of.

 

[1robin]

Christianity seems to have the monopoly on revisionist history.

Prove it. Even if you were right I do not defend or believe in non-Biblical Christian history. I do not care if it was 100% false. My faith is in Christ not Aquinas.

You keep repeating the evil other religions did - while playing Not-so - with the evil your own did.

When an Aztec cut the heart out of someone he did so specifically because his religion demanded it. When the crusaders killed Muslim, Jewish, and even Christian people in Jerusalem they did it in spite of the Bible. However I have no problem with adding up the deaths caused by people claiming to be Christians if we compare it with the deaths caused by people claiming to be atheists, evolutionists, or some other religion.

Christians burned people alive. Christians skinned people. Christians did all kinds of torture. Christians tossed infants alive into ovens that turned to keep them alive and screaming longer as the flesh stuck to the sides and was torn off them. In front of their parents - whom were then tossed in!

I agree. I however claim they were not doing it because the Bible or God allowed them to. Compare how many people Christ killed verses how many Muhammad or Stalin killed.

Have you bothered to read about your own religion's atrocities?

I know more about them than you do. In fact I know of some that are far worse than any that you posted. They were acting contrary to the Bible and are no reflection on it or I can assume responsibility for them if you do for Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao and the other atheistic tyrants who's actions were far more justifiable in atheism than Richard the Lionheart’s were by the Bible. I will never deny what people claiming to be Christians did. I will however assign blame where it deserves to be assigned. I have not denied that the Hebrews killed entire cultures off (though in fact they didn’t) because that WAS authorized by the Bible.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The Bible is not a rolodex with instruction for every concept in history. You must use COMMON SENSE and the over all narrative of the Bible to discern the Character of God.

So you don't have a verse, then?

God gets pretty darn specific when he wants to... i.e. exactly what sort of animal to sacrifice to redeem the firstborn of some other type of animal, and when, and why. If God wanted to unambiguously declare slavery to be wrong, he would have been capable of doing it, no?

I think the fact that he gives less clear direction on freeing of slaves than he does on, say, the finish on his altar suggests that he cared less about freeing slaves than he did about the finish on his altar.

NO one that provided the only foundation for the equality, sanctity, and value of every man loves slavery. Jesus said:
New Living Translation (©2007)
"The Spirit of the LORD is upon me, for he has anointed me to bring Good News to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim that captives will be released, that the blind will see, that the oppressed will be set free,

Yet you also say that the New Testament didn't ban slavery either. Which is it?

I will let a little known man who had more to do with ending slavery than any mortal who ever lived say it for me:
“I know there is a God, and that He hates injustice and slavery. I see the storm coming, and I know that His hand is in it. If He has a place and work for me, and I think He has, I believe I’m ready. I am nothing, but Truth is everything.”
Abraham Lincoln, during his first presidential campaign

Here's what I think you're doing: you're building your God in your own image, but you're tied to the Bible.

You think slavery is wrong, so your God thinks slavery is wrong. However, you have to reconcile this God endorsing slavery all over the place in the Old Testament, so you've arrived at this awkward position where - for no reason other than your assumption that your God is good, apparently - God only endorsed slavery because it was better than the alternatives at the time.

Nope, if you realize that there was no well fare, no credit doctors, no food banks, no Medicare then an arrangement that benefitted both parties even though not optimal would be relatively good. How good, is relative. The fact that it was good is not.

Many of the laws of kashrut concerned feeding the poor and helping the needy. Didn't they exist in your version of history?

First this can't be general because it was cancelled when Christ died even if it was in effect then.

I meant "general" in the sense that it wasn't an instruction for a specific battle or against a specific foe. It wasn't God saying "hey - here's how I want you to deal with the Whateverites;" it was God saying "hey - here's how I want you to wage war."

However lets give this some context.
20:15 Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations.
20:16 But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:
20:17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:
20:18 That they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against the LORD your God.

Deuteronomy, Chapter 20
As you can see he gets very specific in the verses you did not include. He also states the reason for this which I have already alluded to.

I really don't see anything that helps your case here. It basically outlines two strategies to deal with different enemies:

- if you're attacking a nearby country you want to annex, wipe out the inhabitants in a genocidal slaughter and move in yourself.

- if you're attacking a far-away country you won't want to annex, kill all the men, but enslave the women and children.

So how does this "context" put your God in any better light?

Also, I think it's hilarious that you got this from the Skeptic's Annotated Bible.

Slavery existed in every culture on Earth at that time. In what culture did he institute slavery where it did not previously exist?

Polytheism existed in every culture at one time. Did Elijah say "gee... they're not ready for this whole monotheism thing yet; better leave them worshipping false gods for a while"?

Again slavery already existed. I will point out something I learned a while back. The standard practice in these wars of annihilation practiced in various cultures at the time, the victors killed all the enemy. They did so to stop a reemergence of rebellion, as a message to others, and to avoid wasting resources on them. Instead God says to incorporate them into the Hebrew servitude institution instead of leaving them without food and sitting in smoking rubble.

Actually, God was also a fan of indiscriminate genocide, too. It depended on his mood, apparently. There's the instruction that you provided above ("But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: But thou shalt utterly destroy them"), and I can provide other verses if you like.

I remember one where the armies of Israel conquered a city, left some of the inhabitants and their livestock alive, and God said (paraphrased, obviously) "no, no - go back and finish the job. Slaughter the lot of them."

We can get into combatant slavery if you wish, I think it was harsher than typical servitude but it sure is better than killing them or abandoning them to starve or steal to survive.

"Slavery - it's better than genocide!" I hope you're in marketing.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What Christians do is many times not what God commands. Circumcision is no longer required but is healthier than not circumcising boys, Saturday is not the day 90% of Christians worship, no Christian I ever heard of does anything Kosher. Where did you get this stuff?

I think you missed my point.

Jesus and friends are depicted as doing all sorts of disruptive things... undermining the authority of the religious establishment, "setting brother against brother", and whatnot. Paul is all about getting rid of Jewish customs like circumcision and avoiding certain foods. To suggest that they decided not to tell their followers not to own other people as property because they were afraid to rock the boat doesn't fit at all with the rest of what they did and said.

NT slavery is a whole different animal. I have already covered this in detail. I hope it was with another person. NT slavery is truly harsh slavery. It was mandated by Roman law. Palestine was controlled by Rome and in NT times Rome's rule was severe. They hated and guarded against slave revolts ever since Spartacus. There were no longer cities of refuge and runaways were instantly hunted down and killed. God's command here is to prevent slaves from think they were no longer required to serve and bolt. They would have been killed and the apostles would have as well for promoting this escapism. God is primarily concerned with getting us into heaven not making us happy in this life and allows the status quoe to remain in place many times as an example of just how screwed up we are. This was not a commentary on slavery as much as on what the apostles should do when they encountered Roman slavery.

First off, you only dealt with Romans owning Christians as slaves. You didn't touch on the issue of Christians owning slaves themselves. Roman law didn't force them to own slaves, did it?

Second, your excuses for God are starting to paint a pretty sorry picture of him: in the age of the OT, God's will was subject to human culture. In the age of the NT, God was incapable of protecting his followers. The farther we go, the less mighty he seems.

Yes, all OT Levitical and legalistic laws are no longer in effect. Some argue that the Decalogue is still in effect but that is uncertain. IN effect God took law from something carved in rock or written on paper and wrote in the Christians heart. Of course being imperfect we obey it no better.

So... to the extent that the OT laws made slavery more "benevolent", they were set aside by Jesus. IOW, Christians were given freedom to enslave people in the old, cruel way that existed before the OT laws. No?

Not releasing them after 6 years for one. Not being punished for killing them even if a law existed for it.

The rule about being released after 6 years was for Jewish slaves. I doubt there were many Jews in the Africans taken to America or their ancestors.

It is either serfdom or slavery. There is no gymnastics needed. All ten accepted commentators suggest servant. I have yet to see a Biblical scholar say it was anything like old south slavery.

Serfdom was slavery.

This whole thing can be summed up quickly as I am getting burned out on the issue.
1. God did not institute slavery. He modified something that already existed.

... and wasn't able to institute something better.

2. Every indication is that OT slavery was beneficial to both sides and most of the time voluntary.

Slavery isn't voluntary.

3. NT slavery was harsh and Roman. God only said what to do or say when it was encountered because if the apostles set them free, both the slaves and apostles would have been hunted down and killed.

... because God got tired of smiting the people persecuting his followers after the whole parting the Red Sea episode?

4. God overwhelmingly acts through natural law and societal norms. He abandoned us to them when man fell and they are to be examples of our sickness.

The God you're describing is not the God of the Bible. According to the Bible, every prophet and even the son of God himself (who is also God himself, depending on your views on the Trinity) all give messages that amount to telling people that they're doing important things wrong and commanding them to institute major, society-shifting change.

The jump from polytheism to monotheism, or from Judaism to Christianity, are much more upheaval-inducing and paradigm shifting than abolition of slavery would have been.

5. God may even have sufficient moral grounds for allowing completely and clearly evil things to exist. You simply have no way to determine that.

And here we come full circle to what I said that set this whole tangent off: "it's not evil when God does it." So after all that, you do agree.

You simply can't allow this to be true even when the vast majority of evidence and scholarship indicates it is true. You will not give God the benefit of the fact much less the doubt. I can and do. If God loves slavery instead of just putting up with a more benevolent form of it, why didn't his greatest and purist revelation (CHRIST) enslave anyone, instead of claiming to set captives free?

Who did Christ free? The only freedom he promised was for the dead.

What else should we infer from Jesus' actions? He never married, right? What should we take from that? If his never enslaving anyone means he doesn't support slavery, what does it mean that he never married anyone?

90% of the Bible is a clear refutation of the 10% of it that you are exploiting the ambigous nature of.

It's not ambiguous, and it's a whole lot more than 10%.

And even 10% would be too much. "Bob's a really good guy - he only murders once every two weeks. 13 days out of 14, he's a sweeheart."

 

[WyattDerp]

If God loves slavery instead of just putting up with a more benevolent form of it, why didn't his greatest and purist revelation (CHRIST) enslave anyone, instead of claiming to set captives free?

Wait, what? Did you even read that thing? At least Paul is going on and on and on about being a slave to Christ. And then there's the whole Relevations stuff; namely the bit about those who refused Christ to be slaughtered "in the presence of the lamb". Oh, and people who try to kill themselves but can't, because the insect monsters aren't done with them.

But maybe it's not so bad, because ultimately nobody but Jesus survives, anyway; after all, "old Adam" is sinful and dead without knowing it, the only chance to survive is to implant Jesus, and the only thing in the saved person that gets accepted is Jesus. And since Jesus is God, that seems like a really awkward and drawn out way to undo creation, without even being able to put it bluntly. There is a big fat elephant sitting not even between the lines of the Bible, but in plain sight.

"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets." -- Voltaire

Hipocrisy and doublethink are kinda neat in a way, like selling a burglar alarm that steals your stuff, or a gun with which you can shoot people to keep them safe from catching a cold or missing a bus. If I had come up with it, instead of that being attempted on me, I would find it funny; but as it is, it's an outrage.

 

[allright]

Please provide any verse in the Old Testament which says an Israelite could use force to make another Israelite become his Servant (slave) against his will

Exodus 21:16 He who kidnaps a man and sells him or he is found in his hand shall be put to death

 

[WyattDerp]

Well, non-Israelites are people, too, so I don't see how that helps?

 

[allright]

Well, non-Israelites are people, too, so I don't see how that helps?

Non Israelites could not be forced into slavery unless they were defeated in war, in fact Israelites could sell themselves to foreigners who dwelt within Israel's borders to be their servants
Also there were strict rules on how non Israelite servants were to be treated

 

[1robin]

So you don't have a verse, then?

No, nor should I have. Most things are left to our God given conscience and our ability to understand the Character of a good who revealed himself the 750,000 word most popular book in human history. God is not a magic eight ball.

God gets pretty darn specific when he wants to... i.e. exactly what sort of animal to sacrifice to redeem the firstborn of some other type of animal, and when, and why. If God wanted to unambiguously declare slavery to be wrong, he would have been capable of doing it, no?

Yes he is vague about some things and he is specific about some things. God does not answer to me or you. However he did supply an infinitely firmer foundation for morality than any generated without him. He also produced the person this man said this about:
"The character of Jesus has not only been the highest pattern of virtue, but the strongest incentive to its practice, and has exerted so deep an influence, that it may be truly said, that the simple record of three short years of active life has done more to regenerate and to soften mankind, than all the disquisitions of philosophers and than all the exhortations of moralists."
William Lecky One of Britain’s greatest historians.

I think the fact that he gives less clear direction on freeing of slaves than he does on, say, the finish on his altar suggests that he cared less about freeing slaves than he did about the finish on his altar.

Think what you wish, you will anyway. If you can't tell your side of the fence (thought not you specifically) has used up all my daily benevolence and it's just 4 pm.

Yet you also say that the New Testament didn't ban slavery either. Which is it?

What Jesus said is more significant than physical slavery and the point was his words are diametrically opposed to a being that wanted slavery of any kind. Allowing something the Romans mandated is a far cry from wanting people enslaved.

Here's what I think you're doing: you're building your God in your own image, but you're tied to the Bible.
You think slavery is wrong, so your God thinks slavery is wrong. However, you have to reconcile this God endorsing slavery all over the place in the Old Testament, so you've arrived at this awkward position where - for no reason other than your assumption that your God is good, apparently - God only endorsed slavery because it was better than the alternatives at the time.

I posted what I found to be true. If it said that slavery in the OT was harsh I would have said so. My desires can't force OT slavery to be one thing or the other. I went to the most respected scholars and commentary and posted exactly what they said. You may think it convenient but this is incidental and the web you wove above simply wrong. I do not care enough about what anyone thinks about God to invent anything. I make mistake but I never fudge data on purpose. I could say you prefer OT slavery to be malevolent so you can feel good about denying God. In fact the data is on my side of this but there is no profit is spinning webs based on assumptions.

Many of the laws of kashrut concerned feeding the poor and helping the needy. Didn't they exist in your version of history?

There were laws like leaving the edges of fields unharvested which BTW is yet another stone around the neck of your God is evil theory but even with the laws there was vastly more suffering from want then than now. Even today much of Africa's population lives only because of aid.

I meant "general" in the sense that it wasn't an instruction for a specific battle or against a specific foe. It wasn't God saying "hey - here's how I want you to deal with the Whateverites;" it was God saying "hey - here's how I want you to wage war."

I thought what I posted indicated God saying this is how I want you to wage war against these specific tribes. I am too short of time to verify but I am pretty sure.

I really don't see anything that helps your case here. It basically outlines two strategies to deal with different enemies:
- if you're attacking a nearby country you want to annex, wipe out the inhabitants in a genocidal slaughter and move in yourself.

Only when God had selected them for this and when he had already been working with them and they refused to obey. In one verse it specifically says that he made Israel wait until their cup of wrath was full. IN others he states that he had tried for a long time to get them to repent. In other it says just how evil their actions were. My examples though are from a secular book on OT war fare. He wished they would change but to save his people when they didn't he eradicated them.

- if you're attacking a far-away country you won't want to annex, kill all the men, but enslave the women and children.

This one gets very complex. Also remember this was only for wars that were ordered by God. Israel attacked on it's own many times and God made them pay for it. This has to do, I am too tired for this, go here:
http://www.gci.org/ethics/war2
"If a wicked man turns away from all the sins he has committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, he will surely live; he will not die�Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign Lord. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?" (Ezekiel 18:21, 23). And he goes on in verse 32, "For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent and live!" And there is this compelling verse recorded in 2 Chronicles 16:9, "For the eyes of the Lord range throughout the earth to strengthen those whose hearts are fully committed to him."
http://www.biblica.com/bibles/faq/9/
Continued below:

 

[1robin]

So how does this "context" put your God in any better light?

It takes more study than I have time for at the moment but far less than I would do before I ever claimed what you are.

Also, I think it's hilarious that you got this from the Skeptic's Annotated Bible.

I use them a lot but have no idea whether they are skeptical of the Bible or a site to refute skeptics.

Polytheism existed in every culture at one time. Did Elijah say "gee... they're not ready for this whole monotheism thing yet; better leave them worshipping false gods for a while"?

The other nations were not attacked because of Polytheism they were attacked because they were infecting Israel with it or God knew they would. The standard action is this.
1. God tried to get a nation to stop doing sacrifices of children or attacking Israel.
2. They refused.
3. God told Israel to wipe them out.
4. Israel did not do so.
5. The nations infected Israel with their wickedness and both were punished.
If there is any verse where God kills anyone only for being polytheistic I do not know of it. IN fact he favored many nations that believed in other Gods if they were civil and not odious. Take Persia for example.

Actually, God was also a fan of indiscriminate genocide, too. It depended on his mood, apparently. There's the instruction that you provided above ("But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: But thou shalt utterly destroy them"), and I can provide other verses if you like.

No need, I agree this happened and I have more than once said why. I think given God and his purpose he had moral reasons to do this. Only if the Bible is wrong is he evil but then there is no discussion needed.

I remember one where the armies of Israel conquered a city, left some of the inhabitants and their livestock alive, and God said (paraphrased, obviously) "no, no - go back and finish the job. Slaughter the lot of them."

That is because they every time they left some of the stuff alive it bit them in the butt. Have I not went through the reasons for all these harsh things with you. I know it's in this thread. Given his purpose these actions were necessary. One of the times they let a queen live, her son talked the Persian King Xerxes into killing every Hebrew in Persia (4/5ths of the entire known world). It was only God and Esther that prevented it.

"Slavery - it's better than genocide!" I hope you're in marketing.

Slavery is better than the two other options available to people at that time. Leaving a million starving and homeless people to ravage the land, or kill them all. Maybe if you had existed back then you could have constructed another planet and sent them off to it in your starship with all the seeds and building materials they would need or had God do so. No I am not in marketing. I am DOD and a veteran, maybe that is why warfare is not as much of a shock as it is to you. Have a good afternoon and do not take my impatience personally. The arrogance of the omniscient science is the arbiter of all truth crowd is hard to take some times.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Woa, this is not a thread about slavery. The persons discussing the subject in this thread are not necessarily representative of the relevant information. To begin with, human trafficking is not acceptable. Abraham opposed it himself, as recorded in Genesis. He refused to accept 'People' from the king of Sodom. Instead he chose to treat others as equals. (Genesis 14:44) Yes, this has been overlooked by many people in modern times.

It is essential to recognize that a simple common reading of the Mosaic laws is insufficient to establish what it is talking about when slavery arises as topic. Its not a graphic novel or a step by step how-to-be-a-Jew manual. You cannot read the law with a novel mentality. First, you must put yourself into the thought patterns of a Jew as best you can. You must begin by imaging yourself as a slave whose family has escaped from Egypt. You are not interested in enslaving anyone, and it is immoral to do so. Now go back and read the laws, and think about them deeply. They will speak to you about the horrible nature of slavery then and are not a manual on how to enslave. Quite the opposite. They are a manual on how to free the mind of the enslaved.

duh