Does God condone slavery TODAY?

[Zzyzx]

.
Does God condone slavery TODAY?

I have encountered nothing in the Bible indicating that God condemns or even discourages the practice of slavery. Even “don't return escaped slaves� or “don't beat them to death: accept the practice of slavery.

In today's world slavery exists. Most enlightened / educated / informed people seem to oppose the practice. However, God does not seem to have anything to say on the matter.

Has God changed his mind? If so, how has that been made known?

[JLB32168]

Not accepting the difference between freedom and slavery, while attempting to show us the difference.

Why is the reasoning fallacious? I accept that there’s a difference – one can leave and one cannot (except in the case of Hebrew slavery where indeed the slaves could leave and no one could do anything about it under pain of death.)

In my opinion, yes. I hold that slavery is immoral. This is my moral opinion.

Is your moral opinion better than someone else’s moral opinion who thinks that owning slaves is perfectly okay?

But to outsiders, it might seem that you defend BIBLICAL slavery.

I’m calling into the question the people who criticize the deity for not condemning it when they cannot even say that it is wrong – other than qualifying it that it is their opinion that it’s wrong.

So, if something exist in an absolute way I have to wonder if you think that it doesn't exist at all... Absolute morality or nothing, is it?

I said that no one has demonstrate that “slavery is wrong� is a moral absolute. Indeed, if it isn’t a moral absolute then the deity what didn’t condemn it had no reason to condemn it since it wasn’t wrong when He gave directives on how it was to be managed.

I hold that slavery is wrong PERIOD.

You’re treating your opinion as though it is an absolute. You don’t get to do that if you subscribe to subjective morality.

Morality is not "all or nothing" to me.

It apparently is w/slavery so you’re not even consistent in that respect.

[JLB32168]

Is submission and slavery still confusing for you?

Someone said that the NT, which taught submission to God’s commands to love one’s neighbor as his own self, is slave theology. That person equated submission to commands to slavery. You need to take your concerns to that person. You should perhaps go back and read some more of the posts since you seem to be ill-informed on what they say. I’m glad we got to clarify your confusion.

[Clownboat]

Is submission and slavery still confusing for you?

Someone said that the NT, which taught submission to God’s commands to love one’s neighbor as his own self, is slave theology.

Who is this someone and why are you using their words and then not defending them?

That person equated submission to commands to slavery.

Who is this person and why do you type their words here?

You need to take your concerns to that person.

Who is this person? You see JLB, I witnessed you say them in a post and that is the post I am addressing.

You should perhaps go back and read some more of the posts since you seem to be ill-informed on what they say.

Do I really have to re-read the entire thread to figure out what you meant when you typed (not quoted mind you) asking if submission is slavery?

I’m glad we got to clarify your confusion.

You don't say?

[bluethread]

You should perhaps go back and read some more of the posts since you seem to be ill-informed on what they say.

Do I really have to re-read the entire thread to figure out what you meant when you typed (not quoted mind you) asking if submission is slavery?

No, you don't. Let me help. JLB was responding to Blastcat's stating that my reference to being Torah submissive makes it a slave theology.

[JLB32168]

Who is this person? You see JLB, I witnessed you say them in a post and that is the post I am addressing.

Go and find it yourself, Dude. Someone said, “[Submitting to someone as a servant] sounds like slave theology to me. They really liked their slaves back then, didn't they?� That sounds like someone thinks submission=slavery unless you have some other novel way to interpret it. A comment like “Is submission and slavery still confusing for you?� is crass and condescending and I have little problem pointing that out.

. . . or what BT said.

[Zzyzx]

.

Not accepting the difference between freedom and slavery, while attempting to show us the difference.

Why is the reasoning fallacious?

The two terms are NOT synonymous. Attempting to make them so is fallacious.

I accept that there’s a difference – one can leave and one cannot

There is a bit more difference between slavery and freedom than just ability to leave.

(except in the case of Hebrew slavery where indeed the slaves could leave and no one could do anything about it under pain of death.)

Under Hebrew law could the OWNER do anything about a slave escaping / leaving? Were owners permitted to beat slaves – provided they did not die within two days?

In my opinion, yes. I hold that slavery is immoral. This is my moral opinion.

Is your moral opinion better than someone else’s moral opinion who thinks that owning slaves is perfectly okay?

I am content with readers deciding for themselves whether objection to slavery is 'morally better' than accepting owning slaves.

But to outsiders, it might seem that you defend BIBLICAL slavery.

I’m calling into the question the people who criticize the deity for not condemning it when they cannot even say that it is wrong – other than qualifying it that it is their opinion that it’s wrong.

Yes, you are attempting to defend tales of a deity condoning slavery by questioning whether slavery is wrong.

Perhaps that defense is convincing to those whose personal moral codes accept slavery or who worship a deity that condones the practice. I think the issue demonstrates for all to consider if both the worshipers and their proposed deity are morally bankrupt.

So, if something exist in an absolute way I have to wonder if you think that it doesn't exist at all... Absolute morality or nothing, is it?

I said that no one has demonstrate that “slavery is wrong� is a moral absolute.

I maintain that there is no such thing as a 'moral absolute'.

Absolute is defined as: something that is 100 percent complete with no exceptions; always true and accepted as fact, with no arguments against it or conditions necessary for it to be true www.yourdictionary.com/

Indeed, if it isn’t a moral absolute then the deity what didn’t condemn it had no reason to condemn it since it wasn’t wrong when He gave directives on how it was to be managed.

It would seem as though a supposedly all-wise deity would understand that people owning other people is at least as 'wrong' as lying about one another, coveting, stealing. A hypothetical deity that does not recognize that does not strike me (and likely readers too) as being all-wise as claimed.

However, if Bible stories were concocted by humans claiming to represent 'God', those stories could be expected to reflect the opinions / morality of the writers. If storytellers approved of slavery but disapproved of 'false witness', theft, coveting, etc, their stories are likely to reflect those opinions – presented as though from 'God'.

I hold that slavery is wrong PERIOD.

You’re treating your opinion as though it is an absolute. You don’t get to do that if you subscribe to subjective morality.

Notice that 'I hold that� does NOT claim absolute but is clearly stated as a personal conclusion or opinion.

[Clownboat]

You should perhaps go back and read some more of the posts since you seem to be ill-informed on what they say.

Do I really have to re-read the entire thread to figure out what you meant when you typed (not quoted mind you) asking if submission is slavery?

No, you don't. Let me help. JLB was responding to Blastcat's stating that my reference to being Torah submissive makes it a slave theology.

Thanks.

What confuses me, as you can see in post 80 is that I asked him: "can you see how submission and slavery are different concepts?"
From that he responded with: "Children submit to their parents (when reasonable.) Are children slaves? "

Why do you think he asked me if children were slaves?
I have yet to hear anyone here argue such a point in this thread, thus it seems he is confused or at least trying to muddy the waters. No?

Either way, he specifically asked me if children are slaves. Therefore I don't understand why I need to take this statement up with you as if you said it.
Perhaps you brought up children being slaves and I just don't recall it?

[JLB32168]

The two terms are NOT synonymous. Attempting to make them so is fallacious.

I never said that “freedom� and “slavery� were synonymous. That was a mischaracterization of my argument which asked what the difference was aside from the fact that one is owned and the other is not. That should have been obvious when I said, “One can leave and one cannot,� which you cited.

BTW, the starkest difference between the two is that one is bound to an owner while one isn’t. That isn’t appreciably different from “one can leave and one cannot.�

Under Hebrew law could the OWNER do anything about a slave escaping / leaving? Were owners permitted to beat slaves – provided they did not die within two days?

Hebrew law isn’t specific as to what the owner may do – other than s/he can beat their slaves. It is specific to the case that slaves can flee their owners and no one may, under penalty of death, retrieve or otherwise harass the runaway. It would appear that the slave only remained a slave inasmuch as s/he desired to be one. There was a rite involved for the slave who wished to remain. His ear was pierced by the owner to the lintel of the doorway.

I am content with readers deciding for themselves whether objection to slavery is 'morally better' than accepting owning slaves.

In other words, you don’t wish to explain why your opinion of what’s morally better is actually morally better than someone who disagrees and thinks that slavery is acceptable. That’s telling.

Yes, you are attempting to defend tales of a deity condoning slavery by questioning whether slavery is wrong.

I’m defending slavery? Why does slavery need defending – if it isn’t categorically/unconditionally wrong?

I think the issue demonstrates for all to consider if both the worshipers and their proposed deity are morally bankrupt.

One who qualifies moral statements with, “In my opinion . . .� as if he cannot absolutely say something is wrong, is hardly in any position to comment on the moral bankruptcy of another moral code if you ask me.

I maintain that there is no such thing as a 'moral absolute'.

So the morality of slavery is as variable as human opinion and indeed it might a good thing one hundred years from now – but the Christian religion is morally bankrupt.

It would seem as though a supposedly all-wise deity would understand that people owning other people is at least as 'wrong' as lying about one another, coveting, stealing.

You haven’t explained why it’s wrong but refuse to do so (except to appeal to popular opinion.) If there are no absolutes then how do you know it’s as wrong as coveting and stealing?

Notice that 'I hold that� does NOT claim absolute but is clearly stated as a personal conclusion or opinion.

Okay – so it’s personal conclusion/opinion. Why then do you presume to say it’s wrong for everyone else? Why do you judge someone who is all wise as being less than wise when he disagrees with you when you’ve just admitted that “slavery is wrong� is personal opinion and nothing more? Your position is so self-contradictory that it’s fascinating to see you say one thing in one moment and then contradict it the next, and not seem to notice what you’ve done.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 91 by JLB32168]




[center]Fallacious Religious Reasoning:
Not KNOWING the difference between freedom and slavery, while attempting to show us the difference.
Part Four: Moral opinions vs. Absolute Morality[/center]

Not accepting the difference between freedom and slavery, while attempting to show us the difference.

Why is the reasoning fallacious?

It was my impression that you didn't accept a difference between slavery and freedom. If that is NOT the case, then fine, great. Thanks for clarifying, and I will stop accusing you of it.

It would be GREATLY fallacious to not understand the meaning of slavery and freedom while ATTEMPTING to explain what slavery and freedom mean.

That's how I understood you so far.
If you want to change my impression, great.
DO THAT.

I accept that there’s a difference – one can leave and one cannot (except in the case of Hebrew slavery where indeed the slaves could leave and no one could do anything about it under pain of death.)

Good.. you accept that slavery isn't freedom. Great.
Bravo !!

We are making progress.
HOWEVER, we aren't done quite yet:

You aren't a slave if you can leave... that's being FREE to leave. Slaves are not free.
So, once again, you seem to be confused about what slavery and freedom means.

You accept that freedom and slavery are not the same, but you can't seem to tell the difference between slavery and freedom. But we are making progress.. one step at a time is good.

You still can't reasonably lecture us on what slavery and freedom is, if you can't even tell the DIFFERENCE, so the fallacy needs to be changed a little bit. You accept the difference. It's just that you don't know what it is. This post's title reflects that change. So you have progressed in your thinking, but not by much.

Slaves are free?
Of course slaves aren't free.

Get your facts straight before presuming to lecture us about slavery.
If you want anyone to understand you, give us your definitions and then STICK with it.. Right now, you are using words and I don't know what you mean by them.

It's all very ambiguous.
Number one on my wish lists for debates is CLARITY.

In my opinion, yes. I hold that slavery is immoral. This is my moral opinion.

Is your moral opinion better than someone else’s moral opinion who thinks that owning slaves is perfectly okay?

I take it that you would not like to be told that I was morally superior to you, and I can understand that. I am not saying that I am. I am saying that you are confused about the meaning of a lot of English words. And in this case, it's "slavery".

I blame apologetics for it.. the preachers play with words like that... and somehow, it doesn't work so well when Christians try the same kind of thing out with outsiders. Outsiders seem to have a lot of PROBLEMS with the way that preachers use language.

Oddly.

Over and over, some Christians seem befuddled by the English language.
This is very common with apologetics and in my debates in here with Christians.. some of my MOST used websites are online DICTIONARIES.. because, for SOME reason, it seems that Christians have a LOT of problems with definitions to even common words like "slave" and "freedom", or "opinion" or "fact" and on and on.. the list is VERY long ( note to self: make that list )

I feel sometimes that I should quote the entirety of Oxford's online dictionary and get it all OVER with once and for all... But instead, I seem to have to do it a little at a time.. one word after another.. after another... after another... and so on and so on ....

It gets tiring.
I would like to discuss OTHER issues than just the meaning of words, from time to time, too.

When have I ever written, OR IMPLIED that my opinion is better than anyone else's?
I go out of my way to say that I am NOT perfect.

If someone tells me that they are of the opinion that slavery is OK.. and they ACT on that? I call the police. If they actively PROMOTE slavery? ... I call the police. I call 911 because I think actual or the inciting of slavery an emergency situation that has to be stopped right away.

This isn't about me considering myself better..
It's about not supporting slavery of any kind.

I also don't support murder.. yeah, I have all kinds of moral opinions like that.

But to outsiders, it might seem that you defend BIBLICAL slavery.

I’m calling into the question the people who criticize the deity for not condemning it when they cannot even say that it is wrong – other than qualifying it that it is their opinion that it’s wrong.

I get that a lot.
People think that positions about moral issues are not OPINIONS about moral issues. Again, language difficulties.

In any case, what is your opinion concerning slavery.. is slavery right, or is it wrong?

It might indeed be difficult for some to accept that secular reasons for not condoning immorality exist. Do you know what I use to come to the conclusion that slavery is wrong?.. two things: empathy and reason.

I'll ask you in the question portion what reasons you have for your moral opinion concerning slavery. See below.

So, if something exist in an absolute way I have to wonder if you think that it doesn't exist at all... Absolute morality or nothing, is it?

I said that no one has demonstrate that “slavery is wrong� is a moral absolute.

Ok, I agree.
Nobody demonstrated that.
I don't know if anyone can demonstrate that moral opinions are absolute.

Indeed, if it isn’t a moral absolute then the deity what didn’t condemn it had no reason to condemn it since it wasn’t wrong when He gave directives on how it was to be managed.

As I said, with you, it seems to be all or nothing.
If there are no moral absolutes, then there is nothing wrong or right. No moral absolutes means to you NO MORALITY at all.

As I said: "Absolute morality or nothing"

I hold that slavery is wrong PERIOD.

You’re treating your opinion as though it is an absolute. You don’t get to do that if you subscribe to subjective morality.

You don't seem to quite grasp my position on morality, even though I have gone to great lengths to explain. I will keep trying to answer you as best I can. That last statement does not present my actual position. Sorry.

I'm not treating my opinion as if it was an absolute. I happen to have a strong opinion. I hold that slavery is wrong. I don't have much to add to that.

Slavery=wrong

If someone can show me how human slavery is RIGHT... I'd be very surprised.. but facts are facts. I might be wrong. I've been wrong before, and I probably will be wrong again.

I don't play the "subjective/objective" morality game.
I have a moral theory. It's mine, and it's not yours.

Call it objective or subjective all you want. Call it "banana" for all I care.
I have a HUMAN, Blastcat ( and hence, imperfect ) morality.

Demonstrate to me a better morality, and I will accept it.
Show me, for example why I should accept that slavery is morally good.

Because, right now, MY morality holds that slavery is a great evil.
Always willing to hear someone out, though.

Open minded, too I are
( not grammar good with Blastcat be )

Morality is not "all or nothing" to me.

It apparently is w/slavery so you’re not even consistent in that respect.

No, you got me wrong about my position. I am not talking about any absolute morality. I don't have one of those.

With me, it's never absolutely this or absolutely that.

I do have some pretty strong opinions on certain subjects, slavery being one of those subjects. But I don't pretend to know anything at all "ABSOLUTELY". As I stated earlier.. I'm always open to NEW DATA that could potentially CHANGE MY MIND.. so even my position on slavery, while VERY STRONG... is a provisional one.

As are ALL of my opinions.
I also don't pretend that I am great moral phiosopher with the best ethics imaginable, so I surely MIGHT be wrong, and I intend to keep my options opens. BUT UNTIL THEN.. until someone really convinces me with FACTS that slavery is NOT wrong, I will continue to have the opinion that it's wrong.

Period.

I'm always trying to be open minded, though, so no ABSOLUTE knowledge claim for this guy. I will leave absolutes to whoever wants them.

I don't.

___________

FOR THE RECORD:

I do NOT have any reason to believe that I can know anything "absolutely", nor do I ever portray myself that way. I do, however have moral opinions.

___________

Questions:

• 1. Are moral POSITIONS opinions or facts?
  2. Do you consider it a good idea to write moral theories down in stone so they are NOT subject to new data?
  3. Is morality better because it cannot change?
  4. What makes something morally unacceptable to you?
  5. Could you once and for all explain just what the difference is between slavery and freedom?
  6. How does a human know anything absolutely?
  7. What do the distinctions "objective" or "subjective" mean when characterizing morality?
  8. Is slavery a GOOD thing or a BAD thing and why?
  9. Everyone has a moral code, explicit or not. I am discussing with you slavery in the Bible. Why would you imagine that I feel superior to other people because I have my own moral code concerning slavery?
  10. Do you accept that outsiders to your faith might have sound reasons for their moral codes?
  11. I stated earlier that the basis for my moral code is empathy and reason. What is the basis for YOUR moral code?
  12. Do you have examples other than God giving directives on how to do something doesn't CONDONE doing it? I can give examples of how it does. If I say.. When you drown someone, make sure to sing a happy song to the person. Now, your turn.
  13. Concerning moral absolutes: You stated that "if it isn’t a moral absolute then the deity what didn’t condemn it had no reason to condemn it since it wasn’t wrong", which I take to mean: "If it isn't a moral absolute... it wasn't wrong". I call that an "absolute or nothing" kind of morality. The question is : In your opinion, if morality is not absolute, can we say anything is right or wrong?

___________

[Hawkins]

.
Does God condone slavery TODAY?

I have encountered nothing in the Bible indicating that God condemns or even discourages the practice of slavery. Even “don't return escaped slaves� or “don't beat them to death: accept the practice of slavery.

Why do you have to lie over and again?

Jeremiah 34:8-18 (NIV2011)
8 The word came to Jeremiah from the LORD after King Zedekiah had made a covenant with all the people in Jerusalem to proclaim freedom for the slaves.
9 Everyone was to free their Hebrew slaves, both male and female; no one was to hold a fellow Hebrew in bondage.
10 So all the officials and people who entered into this covenant agreed that they would free their male and female slaves and no longer hold them in bondage. They agreed, and set them free.
11 But afterward they changed their minds and took back the slaves they had freed and enslaved them again.
12 Then the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah:
13 “This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: I made a covenant with your ancestors when I brought them out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. I said,
14 ‘Every seventh year each of you must free any fellow Hebrews who have sold themselves to you. After they have served you six years, you must let them go free.’ Your ancestors, however, did not listen to me or pay attention to me.
15 Recently you repented and did what is right in my sight: Each of you proclaimed freedom to your own people. You even made a covenant before me in the house that bears my Name.
16 But now you have turned around and profaned my name; each of you has taken back the male and female slaves you had set free to go where they wished. You have forced them to become your slaves again.
17 “Therefore this is what the LORD says: You have not obeyed me; you have not proclaimed freedom to your own people. So I now proclaim ‘freedom’ for you, declares the LORD—‘freedom’ to fall by the sword, plague and famine. I will make you abhorrent to all the kingdoms of the earth.
18 Those who have violated my covenant and have not fulfilled the terms of the covenant they made before me, I will treat like the calf they cut in two and then walked between its pieces.


Slavery is a human practice. God's bottom line is that Hebrews are not allowed to be enslaved by Hebrews. Thus the slavery system of Hebrews is just a labor system helping the poor who have to sell themselves as slaves. As for the world's secular system, God regulates the Jews such that they won't be as cruel as their neighbors. Back then, the Egyptians killed the children of the Jews simply for the purpose of population control. This however never happened to the Jews who have slaves.