Slavery

[Malleus]

Hi there, Malleus here, long time reader, first time complainer. I am wondering, is the so called moral high ground that various religious groups seem to take warranted, having just read a section of the ten commandments, I came upon a passage thus:

(1) Then God spoke all these words: (2) I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; (3) you shall have no other gods before me. (4) You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. (5) You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, (6) but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments. (7) You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name. (8) Remember the sabbath day, and keep it holy. (9) Six days you shall labor and do all your work. (10) But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any workyou, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns. (11) For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and consecrated it. (12) Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you. (13) You shall not murder. (14) You shall not commit adultery. (15) You shall not steal. (16) You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. (17) You shall not covet your neighbors house; you shall not covet your neighbors wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.
Exodus 20:1-17

As you can see, it first talks of how god has removed the followers from the house of slavery, yet seems to make it clear in the bolded sections that it is fine and dandy to own slaves. Opinions???

Question: Is the Bible a piece of Hate literature proposing double standards and endorsing slavery?

[McCulloch]

But, the fact is that Jesus used what was an everyday occurrence, master and servants and the commonly accepted discipline from master to servant to illustrate his story. The relevant point for this discussion is that Jesus chose such an example and did not take the opportunity to point out that such servitude violates human rights.

Ok so now your argument is that the passage which was selected did not include Jesus saying "STOP doing this."

But isn't this exactly what we were talking about earlier?
[...]
So basically, you have shown once again that the passage presented did not do what the original point demanded, and you have rather chosen the alternate approach of "If it does not say Jesus was against it then Jesus must have been for it." which is a failure in logic. You should recognize this failure in logic.
[...]
A description of an event used as a teaching aid about a separate subject, does not prove the opinions of the one describing the event.

I could use the example of the prison camps in Nazi Germany in an illustration on how to avoid being killed when under harsh conditions. Does this mean I am not against the genocide of the Jews during WWII?

If I writing a book which was to be a comprehensive guide to morality and ethics, then using such an example without at least a passing comment regarding the morality of slavery or concentration camps (an institution invented by the British) then I believe you would be correct to assume that I did not have a moral objection to them.

[achilles12604]

But, the fact is that Jesus used what was an everyday occurrence, master and servants and the commonly accepted discipline from master to servant to illustrate his story. The relevant point for this discussion is that Jesus chose such an example and did not take the opportunity to point out that such servitude violates human rights.

Ok so now your argument is that the passage which was selected did not include Jesus saying "STOP doing this."

But isn't this exactly what we were talking about earlier?
[...]
So basically, you have shown once again that the passage presented did not do what the original point demanded, and you have rather chosen the alternate approach of "If it does not say Jesus was against it then Jesus must have been for it." which is a failure in logic. You should recognize this failure in logic.
[...]
A description of an event used as a teaching aid about a separate subject, does not prove the opinions of the one describing the event.

I could use the example of the prison camps in Nazi Germany in an illustration on how to avoid being killed when under harsh conditions. Does this mean I am not against the genocide of the Jews during WWII?

If I writing a book which was to be a comprehensive guide to morality and ethics, then using such an example without at least a passing comment regarding the morality of slavery or concentration camps (an institution invented by the British) then I believe you would be correct to assume that I did not have a moral objection to them.

Did God himself tell you that the Bible is the end all is all of moral values? If not, then you are working from an assumption.

My assumption is that while the Bible is a good moral guide, it's primary point is to be used as a guide to salvation. Everything else is secondary. Since sin's are forgiven, the primary message should therefore be how to be forgiven (ie the story of Jesus) and how to best live your life becomes a secondary concern. Still important but not the primary message of slavation.

Hence, salvation is not something earned by moral living, it is given through forgiveness of failures.

[McCulloch]

Did God himself tell you that the Bible is the end all is all of moral values? If not, then you are working from an assumption.

You know I do not believe in God. Some Christians claim that the Bible is an accurate guide to history, science and ethics. I keep getting confused by the various different types of Christians, those that claim to accept the Bible completely and those with various different reservations about their Holy Book.

My assumption is that while the Bible is a good moral guide, it's primary point is to be used as a guide to salvation. Everything else is secondary. Since sin's are forgiven, the primary message should therefore be how to be forgiven (ie the story of Jesus) and how to best live your life becomes a secondary concern. Still important but not the primary message of salvation.

That makes it rather hard to justify such a long book. Why all of the minutea regarding the application of the Law? I would think that an important part of the message of salvation would be a clear demonstration of the sinfulness of humans, ie a clear and (somewhat) complete ethical guide, showing the impossibility of not sinning.

Hence, salvation is not something earned by moral living, it is given through forgiveness of failures.

How convenient. Since we do have to live our lives here, it might have been a good idea to include an ethical guide in the Bible. Another thing to add to the list of what the Bible is not.

[achilles12604]

achilles12604 wrote:
My assumption is that while the Bible is a good moral guide, it's primary point is to be used as a guide to salvation. Everything else is secondary. Since sin's are forgiven, the primary message should therefore be how to be forgiven (ie the story of Jesus) and how to best live your life becomes a secondary concern. Still important but not the primary message of salvation.

That makes it rather hard to justify such a long book. Why all of the minutea regarding the application of the Law? I would think that an important part of the message of salvation would be a clear demonstration of the sinfulness of humans, ie a clear and (somewhat) complete ethical guide, showing the impossibility of not sinning.

Does a book have to be 100% comprehensive in order to be useful? By your standards, most of the literature of the world should be ignored. This is a dangerously narrow view. After all Hitler thought most books were useless too and decided to burn them.

[Righteous Indignation]

"My assumption is that while the Bible is a good moral guide, it's primary point is to be used as a guide to salvation. Everything else is secondary. Since sin's are forgiven, the primary message should therefore be how to be forgiven (ie the story of Jesus) and how to best live your life becomes a secondary concern. Still important but not the primary message of slavation."

Forgive me, but I just couldn't help but noticing the small Freudian slip in your statement.

"As I have pointed out before, if you compare the King James Version with the original Greek, you find many many problems."

Achilles, you are the first Christian to tell me that the King James Bible is an inferior translation. Who could have known? So what English language translation do you prefer so I can pull my quotes from it.

Achilles, I question the honesty of any biblical scholar that would say slaves were actually indentured servants. Werent many slaves taken during wars with other nations. How could these people possibly be considered indentured servants? Why does the Bible not say indentured servants if it meant indentured servants. It say slaves and I think its authors meant slaves. There is also the question of why Christians have not corrected their mistake. If you dont what to waste endless hours explaining why the Bible doesnt really supports slavery then change what it says and no more problems. Maybe just add a disclaimer. How about deleting everything that doesnt agree with the following statement:

"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them" - Matthew 7:12

I know it is wrong for me to make another man my slave as it is not something I would wish on myself. I also would not wish that the decision of whether or not to beat me should rest upon faulty human judgment. Slavery is wrong and contradictory to many parts of the Bible, so make a stand, make a change, and we can all move on.

[Righteous Indignation]

Duplicate post deleted

[achilles12604]

"As I have pointed out before, if you compare the King James Version with the original Greek, you find many many problems."

Achilles, you are the first Christian to tell me that the King James Bible is an inferior translation. Who could have known? So what English language translation do you prefer so I can pull my quotes from it.

My complaints against the KJV are based on reading how the translation occured from the actual greek. While reading through my interlinear bible, I notice that the forced translation, especially into the old english, caused many places where the meaning was lost unless read very carefully. I prefer the NIV translation. It comes a little closer to the meaning of the original language in my opinion. I have also read some commentaries on the problems with the KJV.

The New King James Version is a conservative revision of the King James version that does not make any alterations on the basis of a revised Greek or Hebrew text, but adheres to the readings presumed to underlie the King James version. In the New Testament, this means that the Greek text followed is the Textus Receptus of the early printed editions of the sixteenth century. The ancient manuscripts, upon which critical editions of the Greek text have been based for nearly two centuries now, are ignored (except in the marginal notes). So, for example, the Johannine Comma is printed in the text of 1 John 5:7-8 just as it was in the King James Version (although a note informs the reader that "only 4 or 5 very late manuscripts contain these words in Greek").

Statements made in the Preface regarding this aspect of the version are somewhat misleading. The Preface points out that the few late medieval manuscripts upon which the Textus Receptus was based "were representative of many more" which constitute "the traditional text of the Greek-speaking churches" (also called the 'Byzantine Text'), and it further asserts that "it is now widely held that the Byzantine Text that largely supports the Textus Receptus has as much right as the Alexandrian or any other tradition to be weighed in determining the text of the New Testament." While this statement is true as far as it goes all manuscripts and other witnesses to the text deserve to be weighed and are weighed by scholars the reader should be told that nearly all competent scholars agree that the so-called Byzantine manuscript tradition of the middle ages can never be given the same evidential weight as the ancient manuscripts.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/nkjv.html

I'm not just blowing smoke.

Achilles, I question the honesty of any biblical scholar that would say slaves were actually indentured servants. Werent many slaves taken during wars with other nations. How could these people possibly be considered indentured servants? Why does the Bible not say indentured servants if it meant indentured servants. It say slaves and I think its authors meant slaves. There is also the question of why Christians have not corrected their mistake. If you dont what to waste endless hours explaining why the Bible doesnt really supports slavery then change what it says and no more problems. Maybe just add a disclaimer.

Actually a disclaimer may be in order. When I am refering to slaved being endentured servants, I am refering to Roman Empire times, specifically times around Jesus and Paul and the formation of the Christian church.

Since non-theists continually wish to bring up the OT, they may do so, but it has nothing to do with my arguement so it becomes inconsequential. You for example just mentioned people being taken during wars and such. This occured a lot in the OT. The babloynians for example took the Jews hostage and back to their capitol. These Jews were actually well taken care of and educated but no matter. We can look on them as beaten and neglected if you wish because this isn't the time period I am refering to. Nor am I refering to the 1600s and beyond where slave trade of african americans became so famous for brutality.

Lets look at Paul's letter to Philemon as an example of what kind of treatment I am talking about. This is what Christians did for those in slavery.

8Therefore, although in Christ I could be bold and order you to do what you ought to do, 9yet I appeal to you on the basis of love. I then, as Paulan old man and now also a prisoner of Christ Jesus 10I appeal to you for my son Onesimus,[a] who became my son while I was in chains. 11Formerly he was useless to you, but now he has become useful both to you and to me.
12I am sending himwho is my very heartback to you. 13I would have liked to keep him with me so that he could take your place in helping me while I am in chains for the gospel. 14But I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that any favor you do will be spontaneous and not forced. 15Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back for good 16no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a man and as a brother in the Lord.
17So if you consider me a partner, welcome him as you would welcome me. 18If he has done you any wrong or owes you anything, charge it to me. 19I, Paul, am writing this with my own hand. I will pay it backnot to mention that you owe me your very self. 20I do wish, brother, that I may have some benefit from you in the Lord; refresh my heart in Christ. 21Confident of your obedience, I write to you, knowing that you will do even more than I ask.

Yea I'm really convinced that Christianity both endorses and condones slavery. I'm even more convinced that the message of Christianity was to beat your slaves and be very brutal to them. After all here Paul calls this slave a brother. "Treat him like you would treat me."

Non-theists that actually believe what you guys are trying to push, obviously have never read the words from those upon which Christainty is based. You guys are really grasping at straws.

How about deleting everything that doesnt agree with the following statement:

"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them" - Matthew 7:12

Matthew 7:12
12So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

Good words to live by.

[MagusYanam]

Since non-theists continually wish to bring up the OT, they may do so, but it has nothing to do with my arguement so it becomes inconsequential. You for example just mentioned people being taken during wars and such. This occured a lot in the OT. The babloynians for example took the Jews hostage and back to their capitol. These Jews were actually well taken care of and educated but no matter. We can look on them as beaten and neglected if you wish because this isn't the time period I am refering to. Nor am I refering to the 1600s and beyond where slave trade of african americans became so famous for brutality.

I agree with you that Christianity, at its best, neither endorses slavery nor tolerates the inequality it inevitably produces among believers - in the Church, no Jew nor Greek, no slave nor free, after all.

However, it cannot be denied that theists (even those calling themselves Christian) have, in the past, used some Biblical verses taken out of context to justify their ownership of slaves. Notice the rhetoric of the Southern states during the pre-Civil War and Civil War periods. They thought they were defending a God-given right to own other people. I think that this was abuse of Holy Scripture, just as the fundamentalists nowadays are abusing Holy Scripture now with their denial of divine grace, use of Genesis as a history book / scientific treatise, attempts to justify war and violence as tools of international dialogue, attempts to justify capital punishment, attempts to justify a materialist / capitalist economic system and numerous other things which Jesus would never have countenanced among his followers.

Perhaps the Southern Bible-belt churches aren't as over this issue as we like to pretend they are. If they could justify slavery then, and try to justify these numerous other abuses now, where does it stop? Now, more than ever, we need a liberal, prophetic voice on the national forum which speaks for decency and common-sense.

[MrWhy]

Does a book have to be 100% comprehensive in order to be useful? By your standards, most of the literature of the world should be ignored. This is a dangerously narrow view. After all Hitler thought most books were useless too and decided to burn them.

We expect books written solely by people to have faults, some of them large. It's not unreasonable to expect religious scriptures to be much better. Even if they were written by humans, they are supposed to be the direct or indirect word of a god.

[MrWhy]

Hi there, Malleus here, long time reader, first time complainer. I am wondering, is the so called moral high ground that various religious groups seem to take warranted, having just read a section of the ten commandments.

Question: Is the Bible a piece of Hate literature proposing double standards and endorsing slavery?

The Bible allows people to find passages that fit their existing ideas, and feelings. It's backup for rationalization.

How little pay or compensation for work determines slavery? Slaves have always received some compensation. Food at a minimum. In current times how little can one pay an illegal immigrant worker, before it's called slavery? Some conservative politicians, supported by religious fundamental groups, are reluctant to pass and inforce laws that prevent business from using low paid illegal immigrants. Is this a modern form of slavery that's just more acceptable.