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>?

[JoeyKnothead]

That said, the best moral system is to be found by studying and understanding the scriptures; especially as elucidated in the NT. Ultimately, understanding morality is not difficult: it means acting in accordance with love for God and one's fellowman. The difficultly comes in living accordingly and denying yourself.

How many adulterers did you stone today? Homosexuals?

[iam1me2023]

[Replying to POI in post #57]

No, it is not a strawman. Christians have differing views about lying. Case/point, read post 55. He is a Catholic and happily admits all lies are deemed a sin. This is, in part, why Catholics invented the concept of 'venial sins' or quote other stuff, again as he mentions in post 55. I too was raised Catholic and later converted to non-denominational.

It is in fact a strawman - post 55 is not a counter-example. It maybe the teaching of some Christians that lying is a sin, but that is a larger doctrinal issue and not an interpretation of the 9th commandment specifically. Now, @AquinasForGod is echoing the teachings of Aquinas. However, if you review what Aquinas wrote in his Summa, he doesn't make any mention of the 10 commandments in his argument against lying (see https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3110.htm).

If the 9th commandment were "Do not bear false witness" - then you'd be able to make a strong case that it is a general prohibition against any falsehood. But it says "Do not bear false witness against your neighbor" - which is a much more specific form of lying, and is generally recognized as meaning not to lie about others - especially when doing so harms them legally/socially.

This is also why I mentioned "white lies', "fibs', "stretching the truth", etc... When it comes down to it, if you were a homicide detective, and were grilling a murder suspect, you may lie to extract a confession. It's called a lie, again, because it's "marked by or containing untrue statements".

Now, you state it is NOT a sin because of its intent. But again, thus far, you are overreaching. Thus far, you have supplied one exception to the rule. The rule suggests lying is bad. Where in the Bible does it state that "any lie, simply done with loving intent, is deemed good" by God?

Lolz - it must have really stung when I called you out on overreaching, seeings as you like to now try to project it onto me every post. Also, I did not state that a lie is not a sin only by its intent - only that the intent is a key factor. Another important factor that I pointed out was the matter of harm; and more specifically unjustified harm. Ultimately, the particular forms of lying that are forbidden by scripture are ones that pose great risk for harm. When you understand this, then you may apply this principle when evaluating other instances of lying not specifically forbidden by the commandments.

In the case of police or detectives lying: their lies may have good intentions, but if it violates ones rights then that is itself an unjustified harm and shouldn't be allowed. Of course, police and detectives do lie and manipulate - and so it is generally advisable to only speak to them with an attorney present.

And again, unanswered, where loving intent is concerned, where exactly does Biblical slavery fit in?

Biblical slavery has several good, loving applications. Working as a slave/indentured servant is preferable to rotting in jail or worse for unpaid debts - such as those incurred for committing theft. And debts had to be settled within 6 years time (or the next year of jubilee, whichever is sooner) - meaning that this system of slavery doesn't allow people to become slaves for life due to financial hardship. If a Hebrew did become an indentured servant, then it was his families job to pay the debt and free him. This is far better than modern Capitalism - where you are encouraged to take on debt, such as student debt, that can very easily turn into life-long indentured servitude. And unlike biblical slavery - where one could run away and be protected from an abusive master - there is no real way to run from debt under Capitalism. You can try for bankruptcy, but even then they have made it increasingly difficult for the common person to escape debt via bankruptcy. So I would personally love 6 years of biblical indentured servitude vs the much longer number of years I get to spend trying to deal with student debt in America.

In the case of life-long slaves - the primary source of such slaves for Israel was from war. And being a slave who had rights and protections in Israel would be far better than death. This is a mercy, which is a form of love. A master would need to care for their slaves; if the conditions were bad, then a slave need but run away - and the Law says that such a run away must be welcomed, protected, and not returned to their master.

Indeed, in scripture the same word (Ebed) is used for a variety of servants/slaves - including the King's High Officials. The King himself is said to be a servant/slave of God. Thus the biblical concept of slavery does not amount to an abusive relationship, and why there are so many protections for slaves in the Law.

[iam1me2023]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #61]

How many adulterers did you stone today? Homosexuals?

The Law is only one aspect of the scriptures. The scriptures maintain that mercy is better than justice. Not that justice is evil, mind - but it is a lesser good. You must study all of scripture and get the larger picture to understand the morality it teaches. Did not Christ say: let him who is without sin cast the first stone? And he, who was the only one eligible to stone the adulteress, did not. And if he did not, then how could I - a sinner - cast any such stones? That's not our job.

[iam1me2023]

[Replying to brunumb in post #59]

There is nothing ambiguous about one human being owning another as property. I'm not interested in the countless variations of slavery. Put all of that aside and just consider the concept of ownership of one human being as property by another. Do you consider it to be acceptable under any circumstances?

There most certainly is ambiguity - hence you find the necessity to keep adding the clarification that you aren't interested in the countless variations of slavery. Those countless variations ARE the ambiguity.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #61]

How many adulterers did you stone today? Homosexuals?

The Law is only one aspect of the scriptures. The scriptures maintain that mercy is better than justice. Not that justice is evil, mind - but it is a lesser good. You must study all of scripture and get the larger picture to understand the morality it teaches. Did not Christ say: let him who is without sin cast the first stone? And he, who was the only one eligible to stone the adulteress, did not. And if he did not, then how could I - a sinner - cast any such stones? That's not our job.

I'm just proud you didn't try to defend the practice.

[iam1me2023]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #65]

I'm just proud you didn't try to defend the practice.

Mind, Jesus did not reject the Law - nor do I. Homosexuality is definitely considered a sin in scripture; and all sin ultimately requires death - which is why we all need forgiveness. I think many Christians and churches have focused far too much on particular sins like homosexuality while conveniently ignoring their own.

[POI]

U It is in fact a strawman - post 55 is not a counter-example.

POI You are incorrect. It is a counter argument. I'll quote the response from post 55:

"A lie is a sin always as Aquinas taught. However, not all sin is equal, as John said, some sin is unto death (mortal sins) and some sin is not (venial sin). Aquinas also taught that there could be a time when a lie, although sin, is for a greater good, such as saving life. This is a venial sin that could be necessary."

And I already quoted sources to justify my position, many posts ago. And then so did you to argue a differing position. So who is right?

U If the 9th commandment were "Do not bear false witness" - then you'd be able to make a strong case that it is a general prohibition against any falsehood. But it says "Do not bear false witness against your neighbor" - which is a much more specific form of lying, and is generally recognized as meaning not to lie about others - especially when doing so harms them legally/socially.

POI So other lies, as long as they are not about your neighbor, are okay? If my mom asks if I took a cookie from the cookie jar, and I say no, but I really did, that's okay?

Again, beside your one example, where else does it grant exception(s) to the rule? And by rule, my position is that the rule is the Bible-God hates lying.

U Lolz - it must have really stung when I called you out on overreaching,

POI Nah, what I find comical; is that you continue to be the pot calling the kettle black.

U Also, I did not state that a lie is not a sin only by its intent - only that the intent is a key factor. Another important factor that I pointed out was the matter of harm; and more specifically unjustified harm. Ultimately, the particular forms of lying that are forbidden by scripture are ones that pose great risk for harm. When you understand this, then you may apply this principle when evaluating other instances of lying not specifically forbidden by the commandments.

POI Again, aside from the one example you provided, which was quite specific, what other lies are okay?

U Biblical slavery has several good, loving applications.

POI Oh, do tell.....

U Working as a slave/indentured servant is preferable to rotting in jail or worse for unpaid debts - such as those incurred for committing theft.

POI According to who?

U And debts had to be settled within 6 years time (or the next year of jubilee, whichever is sooner) - meaning that this system of slavery doesn't allow people to become slaves for life due to financial hardship.

POI You have AGAIN skipped many facets of my response about slavery. Here it is again, for your convenience:

The OT defines two types of 'slaves' -- A) volunteer Hebrew servants and B) 1) tricked male Hebrew servants, 2) women, 3) bred slaves 4) foreign slaves:

A) “If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him." (Ex. 21:2-3)

But... If the Hebrew servant was not aware of the entire law, and was given a mate and had offspring, at year 7, he would be confronted with the follwing:

B) 1) "If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free. 5 “But if the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,’ 6 then his master must take him before the judges.[a] He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life." (Ex. 21:4-6)

B) 2) “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do." (Ex. 21:7)

B) 3) "If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free." (Ex. 21:4)

B) 4) Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly. (Lev. 25:44-46)

Fingered crossed for that upcoming 50 year Jubilee though

[brunumb]

[Replying to brunumb in post #59]

There is nothing ambiguous about one human being owning another as property. I'm not interested in the countless variations of slavery. Put all of that aside and just consider the concept of ownership of one human being as property by another. Do you consider it to be acceptable under any circumstances?

There most certainly is ambiguity - hence you find the necessity to keep adding the clarification that you aren't interested in the countless variations of slavery. Those countless variations ARE the ambiguity.

You are very reluctant to answer a very simple question and keep dancing around the bush and harping on about variations of slavery. Irrelevant, as is the Bible, since the question only requires your personal perspective.

All I want to know is do you consider it to be acceptable under any circumstances for one human being to own another as property?

[iam1me2023]

All I want to know is do you consider it to be acceptable under any circumstances for one human being to own another as property?

Under the proper circumstances, there are times when it is morally permissible for one to own slaves, as I’ve argued throughout the thread. Mind, it’s not an ideal situation- but certainly permissible and even preferable to various alternatives - such as death in war.

[POI]

Thus the biblical concept of slavery does not amount to an abusive relationship, and why there are so many protections for slaves in the Law.

I guess beating your slaves, at will, with complete impunity, is NOT an "abusive relationship".