What Is God's Rationale?

[POI]

Apologists have argued for various forms of Biblical slavery. Apparently, God did not just abolish the topic of slavery entirely, but instead created a special list of can do's and cannot do's for this category. HOWEVER, where the topic of lying is concerned, we see no such list of special instructions? And yet, off the top of one's head, we can formulate all sorts of situationals, where lying may even be deemed the best thing to do in a given set of circumstances.

For debate:

In the Bible, why isn't the topic of <lying> granted with, at least, the same level of flexibility and/or lattitude as the topic of <slavery>?

[Miles]

Apologists have argued for various forms of Biblical slavery. Apparently, God did not just abolish the topic of slavery entirely, but instead created a special list of can do's and cannot do's for this category. HOWEVER, where the topic of lying is concerned, we see no such list of special instructions? And yet, off the top of one's head, we can formulate all sorts of situationals, where lying may even be deemed the best thing to do in a given set of circumstances.

For debate:

In the Bible, why isn't the topic of <lying> granted with, at least, the same level of flexibility and/or lattitude as the topic of <slavery>?

'Cause god didn't find much of anything wrong with slavery. It was no skin off his nose if someone was a slave, and no one could hold god in slavery, but they could certainly lie to him, and do so whenever they liked. Moreover, lying to others amounted to practicing to lie to god. I believe "Nip it in the bud" was his motto.


.

[JoeyKnothead]

In the Bible, why isn't the topic of <lying> granted with, at least, the same level of flexibility and/or latitude as the topic of <slavery>?

Priorities.

I figure everyone knows how problematic lying can be, but some of em it is, ya hafta tell em how bad it is to enslave a fellow human being. Such bad, that the Bible tells ya how to enslave em all holy like.

My notion here squares with the understanding that so many theists're hopped up and ready to place the yoke of theist beliefs around the neck, or twixt the legs, of anyone they think they oughta.

[iam1me2023]

The OT Law was always a compromise between what is ideal and sinful man. The Law doesn’t demand perfection, and in fact often permits things God doesn’t want. One classic example of this is divorce.

In the case of slavery, the scriptures do forbid one Israeli enslaving another - for God rescued them from slavery and that is the basis of the Mosaic Covenant under which they became God’s people and He their God. Slavery is permitted with other peoples. In part this is pragmatic and merciful- better to allow for slaves than to kill everyone when there are wars and such.

But it is also clear that slavery is a very undesirable position to be in - and if we are to love our neighbors as ourself then ideally the foreigner and non-believer ought also not to be enslaved just as it would be wrong for the Israelites to enslave one another.

Thus the Law contains hints of what is ideal while also comprising with sinful man by permitting slavery in certain cases - but not without regulations for the welfare of the slaves as well.

As for lying - the OT Law is only strict about particular forms of lying. For instance: a false prophet is to be put to death; obviously this is a grave crime in a theocracy and without a strong punishment would result in abuse and the destruction of the theocracy.

Another form of lying that would be punishable under the Law would be false testimony- particularly regarding charges brought against someone before a court of law or the like. Such false testimony could have severe consequences for those involved- punishing those who are innocent and/or denying justice to those who have been wronged.

On the other hand, lying in more casual ways is not - as far as I am aware - something that the OT Law is overly concerned with. It’s still frowned upon, but the times when there are regulations around it are where lying could cause serious harm.

[TRANSPONDER]

While you argue it very well, the fact is that God could have and should have forbidden Slavery. "Thou shalt not own another person as property". There. Ok, supplementary laws in Leviticus about indentured servitude. or all, not just Hebrews.

I get the idea of slavery of war captives rather than killing them - though God has no problem with killing them. But the question is not whether you can excuse God not doing better morally than we might think - I said you argued well - but whether it makes more sense if it is just a human moral code, designed to suit the Hebrews and the authority of the priesthood. The believer will deny that of course and prefer Biblefaith, but the point is that it cannot be made a convincing or credible apologetic to the doubter, never mind the atheist apologist. That's where Bible apologetics fail.

[iam1me2023]

While you argue it very well, the fact is that God could have and should have forbidden Slavery. "Thou shalt not own another person as property". There. Ok, supplementary laws in Leviticus about indentured servitude. or all, not just Hebrews.

I get the idea of slavery of war captives rather than killing them - though God has no problem with killing them. But the question is not whether you can excuse God not doing better morally than we might think - I said you argued well - but whether it makes more sense if it is just a human moral code, designed to suit the Hebrews and the authority of the priesthood. The believer will deny that of course and prefer Biblefaith, but the point is that it cannot be made a convincing or credible apologetic to the doubter, never mind the atheist apologist. That's where Bible apologetics fail.

Every person throughout time has their own ideas about what is right/wrong - and often reflects the values of their respective society at the point in time in which they lived. In modernity we think of slavery usually like American/European slavery - racist, dehumanizing, and justified through hateful rhetoric. But how things are implemented makes a huge difference. In the old world, slavery was a means of unification with a conquered people. Slaves would often become family, members of the household.

On the other hand, we turn a blind eye to modern slavery under capitalism because people aren’t being whipped and carried off in chains. For make no mistake - when over 50% of the US is working full time + and making starvation wages, that is a form of slavery. But rather than being slaves to a particular person, they are enslaved to a system - and their chains are debt. Unlike the biblical model where people are to be forgiven all their debts every 7 years - the US has made it near impossible to escape debt

[TRANSPONDER]

While you argue it very well, the fact is that God could have and should have forbidden Slavery. "Thou shalt not own another person as property". There. Ok, supplementary laws in Leviticus about indentured servitude. or all, not just Hebrews.

I get the idea of slavery of war captives rather than killing them - though God has no problem with killing them. But the question is not whether you can excuse God not doing better morally than we might think - I said you argued well - but whether it makes more sense if it is just a human moral code, designed to suit the Hebrews and the authority of the priesthood. The believer will deny that of course and prefer Biblefaith, but the point is that it cannot be made a convincing or credible apologetic to the doubter, never mind the atheist apologist. That's where Bible apologetics fail.

Every person throughout time has their own ideas about what is right/wrong - and often reflects the values of their respective society at the point in time in which they lived. In modernity we think of slavery usually like American/European slavery - racist, dehumanizing, and justified through hateful rhetoric. But how things are implemented makes a huge difference. In the old world, slavery was a means of unification with a conquered people. Slaves became family, members of the household.

On the other hand, we turn a blind eye to modern slavery under capitalism because people aren’t being whipped and carried off in chains. For make no mistake - when over 50% of the US is working full time + and making starvation wages, that is a form of slavery. But rather than being slaves to a particular person, they are enslaved to a system - and their chains are debt. Unlike the biblical model where people are to be forgiven all their debts every 7 years - the US has made it near impossible to escape debt

Obviously I don't buy that. Slaves in the old world were slaves until they bought freedom or were given their freedom. They might become part of society. That more recent slavery tried to resist assimilation in that way does not validate Biblical slavery. The idea that this is being kind to war captives won't wash as the Bible says you can buy slaves from those around you (foreigners) and does not say just whether as a result of war or not. This is chattel slavery - owning people as property, without their volition, and for life and can be gifted to the children when the owner wishes. This is slavery as bad as anything in Russia, China or the South up to emancipation.

It is a different thing from the rhetoric about wage slavery or the so -called slavery of taxation. That is in fact the most humane system we can devise to allow people to live in a complex society, and people, whether they hunted, farmed or herded or indeed had to work in mines, brickmaking or guarding the ruler, had to work. This is social life, not slavery, and it is paradise today compared to the good old days when people were lucky to live to 40 and bread was sold mixed with sawdust and alum.

You cannot whitewash Biblical slavery, nor puke over modern society that gives you a life that a medieval peasant (even a free one) would consider paradise.

[POI]

Every person throughout time has their own ideas about what is right/wrong - and often reflects the values of their respective society at the point in time in which they lived. In modernity we think of slavery usually like American/European slavery - racist, dehumanizing, and justified through hateful rhetoric. But how things are implemented makes a huge difference. In the old world, slavery was a means of unification with a conquered people. Slaves became family, members of the household.

On the other hand, we turn a blind eye to modern slavery under capitalism because people aren’t being whipped and carried off in chains. For make no mistake - when over 50% of the US is working full time + and making starvation wages, that is a form of slavery. But rather than being slaves to a particular person, they are enslaved to a system - and their chains are debt. Unlike the biblical model where people are to be forgiven all their debts every 7 years - the US has made it near impossible to escape debt

As much as I would love to dig into your response here, it really has nothing to do with the debate question. Since you appear to be one of the only theists, so far, to engage this thread, would you mind taking a crack at the debate question (i.e.)?

Why isn't the topic of <lying> granted with, at least, the same level of flexibility and/or latitude as the topic of <slavery>?

And please also note my input, leading up to the given debate question.

I'll also provide a hint. In the Bible, a <lie> is deemed a sin. <Slavery> is not.

[iam1me2023]

Obviously I don't buy that. Slaves in the old world were slaves until they bought freedom or were given their freedom. They might become part of society. That more recent slavery tried to resist assimilation in that way does not validate Biblical slavery. The idea that this is being kind to war captives won't wash as the Bible says you can buy slaves from those around you (foreigners) and does not say just whether as a result of war or not. This is chattel slavery - owning people as property, without their volition, and for life and can be gifted to the children when the owner wishes. This is slavery as bad as anything in Russia, China or the South up to emancipation.

It is a different thing from the rhetoric about wage slavery or the so -called slavery of taxation. That is in fact the most humane system we can devise to allow people to live in a complex society, and people, whether they hunted, farmed or herded or indeed had to work in mines, brickmaking or guarding the ruler, had to work. This is social life, not slavery, and it is paradise today compared to the good old days when people were lucky to live to 40 and bread was sold mixed with sawdust and alum.

You cannot whitewash Biblical slavery, nor puke over modern society that gives you a life that a medieval peasant (even a free one) would consider paradise.

Whether you buy it or not - that was often the case. Also, the fact that a slave could buy their freedom shows a great deal more freedom than modern American/European notions of slavery. Slaves in the old world could be very educated and highly skilled, and be given corresponding responsibility and independence.

Mind, I’m not saying that slavery is by any means ideal - but obviously the particulars matter when judging whether a given system of servitude is acceptable or not.

You yourself have seen fit to defend modern slavery under capitalism- even going so far as to claim (falsely) that such is the most humane system there is. In other words - as long as it’s a form of slavery that you are accustomed to being around you are fine with it and will defend it as not only acceptable but the best possible solution.

[iam1me2023]

[Replying to POI in post #8]

Please see my first post where I do speak of lying in scripture.