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>?

[POI]

U The fact that a slave master cannot kill their slaves or cause them severe injury are some of the ways in which slaves had rights and protection under the OT Law. Compare that to slavery in the US in the 18th and 19th centuries.

POI Attention class, is the answer A), B), C), or D)?

A) Overreaching
B) Whitewashing
C) Rationalizing
D) All of the above

All kidding aside, a slave master could whip their slaves with complete impunity. You know you have no response here. Hence, your prior assertion has been falsified. (i.e.) "The OT Law provides rules and regulations that protect the slaves from abuse" is a completely false statement.

U The rationale behind the Law is the important thing in this discussion. You can disagree with it all you like - so long as you are actually trying to understand what it teaches. Unfortunately your last statement shows that are failing to do this and trying to force the view of 18th to 19th US slavery and racism onto the scriptures - which is absolutely incorrect.

POI I never mentioned the trans-Atlantic slave trade You are, to avoid what the Bible instructs. The Bible instructs complete impunity if the master should decide to beat their slaves. Hence, I stand behind my statement that these slaves are sub-human.

U The scriptures do not support the interpretation that slaves are considered to be sub-human. The very basis of the Mosaic Covenant was that God saved Israel from slavery in Egypt - and thus God took them as his people, and they took YHWH as their God.

POI What exactly would you classify the folks who were deemed lifetime property, which could be beaten with impunity? I say they are deemed sub-human folks.

[iam1me2023]

[Replying to POI in post #39]

Everyone sees what you are doing... And it is not working.... You are trying to escape the argument, based upon some erroneous 'technicality'. You almost started to engage, but then retracted when you see that my argument has legs.

The premise of your argument is fundamentally wrong - and I have told you from the start that the scriptures do not teach that any and all lying is condemned. I furthermore provided a biblical example of women who lied and were in turned blessed by God since their lie was used to protect others. You are the one who has insisted, despite this, that the scriptures - even the 10 commandments - do in fact teach that any and all lying is a sin.

Since this is a premise of your argument, and one which is clearly wrong, there is no going forward without this point being hashed out. Either you need to provide a proper defense of your position or you need to drop this premise and adjust your argument accordingly. I have invited you to corroborate your position by providing references from scholarls/theologians who interpret the verse as you do - and you have failed to do so.

So what will you do? Will you corroborate your position via references to those who interpret the verse as you do? Will you drop this false premise and adjust your argument? Or will you continue to insist upon your false premise while refusing to corroborate it?

Thus far, you have given ONE example, as to a lie given, which God deemed virtuous. Does this mean God thinks many lies are virtuous? Are we to conclude that many lies are deemed virtuous by God, because we read one example in the OT about a specific situation, or it is instead one exception given, because God specifically weighed in on it in that one situation?

1) Does God deem many lies virtuous, like us humans, or not? Does God agree with our rationale? If so, how do you know?

From a Christian perspective, the Law is fulfilled by love. Love of God and love of one's fellowman. If your reason for lying is not malicious, and especially if done for good/loving reasons, and if it doesn't bring harm to others then you are good. There is no law against love.

2) Why does God give so many more specifics about slavery? Specifics in which also allows for their lifetime harm, with no punishment?

There are plenty of commands surrounding different ways people can lie and cause harm - I don't see that there are all that many more verses concerning slavery myself offhand. However, if there are more it is simply because slavery requires more regulation to prevent abuses and to ensure the well being of those enslaved.

[iam1me2023]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #40]

Even if the rights and limits on slaves applied to all slaves, not just Hebrew ones - it is still slavery. Maybe the Hebrew code tries to be nice, maybe it tries to be the best code of the time, but slavery - lifetime chattel slavery - is still what is done with Non -Hebrew slaves. It still falls short of what Humanist ethics came up with 28 centuries later. During which time the Christian god overseeing holy wars, crusades, heretic - burning and fighting science that discovered things that contradicted the Bible, never said ..."I think, Children, it's about time we did something about slavery".That the Israelites had been enslaved, or so tradition had it, only means they could not plead they didn't know it was wrong; they knew.

Your apologetic that we don't understand fails, because slavery from before the time of the Bible to long after it was all the same, well - known and broadly identical; we know slavery when we see it and we see it in the Bible, We can identify special conditions for Hebrew slaves of Hebrews, which was more advanced than some as regards same - nation slaves, and perhaps even as regards foreign lifetime property - slaves; fact remains, chattel lifetime property ownership slavery it was. And our moral code is now better than that.

First of all, I pointed out in my first post that the OT Law is a compromise between what is ideal and sinful man. Ideally there is world peace, everyone's needs are taken care of, we are all equal with no slavery, etc. The only ones who might be surprised that the OT Law isn't perfect are those who haven't studied the scriptures and are going off of hear-say.

Secondly, the scriptures do teach that freedom and equality are ideal - and did so far before Humanist ethics came along.

Thirdly, slavery is still alive and well today - and you specifically have even go so far as to assert that today's form of slavery is the best possible system (ha!); nevermind that people are kept in a lifetime of servitude today as well.

You will need a different apologetic as that one won't wash. Incidentally..did you find that in a book or website, make it up yourself or her it in the pulpit? I would love to know where these apologetics come from.

Thus far all the information I've presented is just off the top of my head; I've studied and debated theology a lot over the years. I'm a pastor's kid and have a BA in Religious Studies in addition to my Masters in Computer Science. I don't have any books specifically on Apologetics; but I've read through a good deal of the writings of the Church Fathers prior to the Council of Nicea along with a more selective reading of later theologians.

[iam1me2023]

POI What exactly would you classify the folks who were deemed lifetime property, which could be beaten with impunity? I say they are deemed sub-human folks.

Your interpretation of things is simply inconsistent with the biblical narrative. The biblical justification for the commandments against murder are that man was made in God's image - and this is all of mankind, not just the Israelites. Thus the biblical protections put in place for slaves forbidding a slave's master from killing them or causing them severe injury are reinforcements of the fact that the slaves are human beings, made in God's image, whose lives are sacred. And, again, to say that slaves are subhuman would mean that Israel is subhuman - or at least the descended from sub-humans. Obviously this isn't something the scriptures or the Jewish people teach.

You are free to not like that the scriptures permit any form of slavery - but don't go misrepresenting what the scriptures teach. If what the scriptures teach is so wrong, then you don't need to embellish it with false assertions like that they teach that slaves are sub-human to condemn it. If you need to embellish it to condemn it, it's because you are having trouble finding a legitimate argument against what it teaches on its own.

[brunumb]

[Replying to brunumb in post #29]

[Replying to iam1me2023 in post #28]
OK. I am not asking about slavery. Just treat this question as it is written. Do you believe that it is acceptable for one human being to own another as property or not? A simple yes or no is all that is necessary to answer that question.

You don't gain anything by avoiding the word "slavery" and instead favoring the more verbose phrasing of "owning another as property." Whichever wording you choose my answer is the same: it very much depends upon the particulars of what you mean. In some cases it maybe permissible, and in others its not.

I'm not asking if it is permissible or not, or what it might be called. It's a simple direct question.

Do you believe that it is acceptable for one human being to own another as property or not? A simple yes or no is all that is necessary to answer that question.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #40]

Even if the rights and limits on slaves applied to all slaves, not just Hebrew ones - it is still slavery. Maybe the Hebrew code tries to be nice, maybe it tries to be the best code of the time, but slavery - lifetime chattel slavery - is still what is done with Non -Hebrew slaves. It still falls short of what Humanist ethics came up with 28 centuries later. During which time the Christian god overseeing holy wars, crusades, heretic - burning and fighting science that discovered things that contradicted the Bible, never said ..."I think, Children, it's about time we did something about slavery".That the Israelites had been enslaved, or so tradition had it, only means they could not plead they didn't know it was wrong; they knew.

Your apologetic that we don't understand fails, because slavery from before the time of the Bible to long after it was all the same, well - known and broadly identical; we know slavery when we see it and we see it in the Bible, We can identify special conditions for Hebrew slaves of Hebrews, which was more advanced than some as regards same - nation slaves, and perhaps even as regards foreign lifetime property - slaves; fact remains, chattel lifetime property ownership slavery it was. And our moral code is now better than that.

First of all, I pointed out in my first post that the OT Law is a compromise between what is ideal and sinful man. Ideally there is world peace, everyone's needs are taken care of, we are all equal with no slavery, etc. The only ones who might be surprised that the OT Law isn't perfect are those who haven't studied the scriptures and are going off of hear-say.

Secondly, the scriptures do teach that freedom and equality are ideal - and did so far before Humanist ethics came along.

Thirdly, slavery is still alive and well today - and you specifically have even go so far as to assert that today's form of slavery is the best possible system (ha!); nevermind that people are kept in a lifetime of servitude today as well.

You will need a different apologetic as that one won't wash. Incidentally..did you find that in a book or website, make it up yourself or her it in the pulpit? I would love to know where these apologetics come from.

Thus far all the information I've presented is just off the top of my head; I've studied and debated theology a lot over the years. I'm a pastor's kid and have a BA in Religious Studies in addition to my Masters in Computer Science. I don't have any books specifically on Apologetics; but I've read through a good deal of the writings of the Church Fathers prior to the Council of Nicea along with a more selective reading of later theologians.

All that tells me is that human ethics and moral are man - made. We got them before Judaism or the Bible and in different cultures that had never heard of YHWH. It has been improving and not really thanks to religion. Religions are well aware of the ideals we all work towards as humans, but takes more credit for that than it deserves and gives human ethics less credit for that than it should.

We make progress but it is not perfect and may never be. But it is time to recognise that Religion only borrows human ethics and pretends to be the author of it.

[POI]

The premise of your argument is fundamentally wrong - and I have told you from the start that the scriptures do not teach that any and all lying is condemned. I furthermore provided a biblical example of women who lied and were in turned blessed by God since their lie was used to protect others. You are the one who has insisted, despite this, that the scriptures - even the 10 commandments - do in fact teach that any and all lying is a sin.

Since this is a premise of your argument, and one which is clearly wrong, there is no going forward without this point being hashed out. Either you need to provide a proper defense of your position or you need to drop this premise and adjust your argument accordingly. I have invited you to corroborate your position by providing references fromscholarls/theologians who interpret the verse as you do - and you have failed to do so.

So what will you do? Will you corroborate your position via references to those who interpret the verse as you do? Will you drop this false premise and adjust your argument? Or will you continue to insist upon your false premise while refusing to corroborate it?

POI Well, digging into my argument any deeper depends on which denomination I'm exchanging with...? Case/point, if you are a Catholic (for example), we could discuss venial sins, in which all lies may qualify to a lesser or higher degree.

Further, I've debated plenty of "hermeneutic scholars" who give me conflicting answers to the same questions. So I do not think consulting a 'theologian' is going to get us a consistent answer across the board on virtually ANY question (open for interpretation). Case/point again, speaking to a Catholic vs. a protestant, for example.

This is why the debate topic is here....

U From a Christian perspective, the Law is fulfilled by love. Love of God and love of one's fellowman. If your reason for lying is not malicious, and especially if done for good/loving reasons, and if it doesn't bring harm to others then you are good. There is no law against love.

POI Well, we need to rehash what I first told you in post 19 "You will find your responses produce more questions, than to provide sensible satisfactory answers."

In this case, if "the law is fulfilled by love" (and) "if it doesn't bring harm to others", how exactly does 'slavery' fit into this equation? Allow me to 'steelman' your argument, to demonstrate.

I can think of countless lies, which are not malicious, but instead well-intended to protect (by love). How do I perform this same rationale for Biblical slavery? Before you answer, please bear in mind exactly what God appears to have weighed in upon:

- can keep some slaves for life
- some slaves are deemed property
- no punishment is to be applied to the master for beatings, as long as the beaten slave do not die or loose eyes/teeth.
- if you are born into slavery, you can be kept by your master
- if the master dies, the slave does not then go free, but can be inherited by the father's next of kin

U There are plenty of commands surrounding different ways people can lie and cause harm - I don't see that there are all that many more verses concerning slavery myself offhand. However, if there are more it is simply because slavery requires more regulation to prevent abuses and to ensure the well being of those enslaved.

POI But God's instruction does not prevent abuse. Instructing that a slave master is not to be punished for a beating does the exact opposite.

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to brunumb in post #29]

[Replying to iam1me2023 in post #28]
OK. I am not asking about slavery. Just treat this question as it is written. Do you believe that it is acceptable for one human being to own another as property or not? A simple yes or no is all that is necessary to answer that question.

You don't gain anything by avoiding the word "slavery" and instead favoring the more verbose phrasing of "owning another as property." Whichever wording you choose my answer is the same: it very much depends upon the particulars of what you mean. In some cases it maybe permissible, and in others its not.

I'm not asking if it is permissible or not, or what it might be called. It's a simple direct question.

Do you believe that it is acceptable for one human being to own another as property or not? A simple yes or no is all that is necessary to answer that question.

Matthew 5:37
All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

He's not asking you to take an oath.

The problem Christians have is within thier own text. They have to explain how - for thousands of years God was find with slavery, and then, only around 80-100 (Ephesians) and 80-110 (1 Peter) does a Christian start to waver on the idea.

The problem is, Ephesians and 1 Peter are anonymous, and written long after the supposed authors died. This means they could be completely invented ideas from the later Church Fathers, or by random people in the Church. They may not reflect the ideas of Jesus.

Even if they did - it still don't answer why God allowed generation after generation of children be born in slavery and remain if he was going to change his mind.

[POI]

POI What exactly would you classify the folks who were deemed lifetime property, which could be beaten with impunity? I say they are deemed sub-human folks.

A) Your interpretation of things is simply inconsistent with the biblical narrative. The biblical justification for the commandments against murder are that man was made in God's image - and this is all of mankind, not just the Israelites. Thus the biblical protections put in place for slaves forbidding a slave's master from killing them or causing them severe injury are reinforcements of the fact that the slaves are human beings, made in God's image, whose lives are sacred. B) And, again, to say that slaves are subhuman would mean that Israel is subhuman - or at least the descended from sub-humans. Obviously this isn't something the scriptures or the Jewish people teach.

C) You are free to not like that the scriptures permit any form of slavery - but don't go misrepresenting what the scriptures teach. If what the scriptures teach is so wrong, then you don't need to embellish it with false assertions like that they teach that slaves are sub-human to condemn it. If you need to embellish it to condemn it, it's because you are having trouble finding a legitimate argument against what it teaches on its own.

A) My interpretation is not inconsistent. I'm not speaking about killing your slaves. I'm speaking about God granting complete impunity for beating your slaves. And now you want to use phrases like 'severe injury'? Wow! This must mean you acknowledge god sanctions/allows "minor injury", whatever that might be... But, we've already been over this. Exodus 21 clarifies what IS punishable. The slave's death or the slave's loss of eyes or teeth must be what you mean by "severe". The rest, ''minor'. Hence, no punishment; even if they suffer from 100 lashes to the back weekly. So let me ask you, logically... Can a slave master whip their slave on the back, chest, legs, back of the head, etc? Sure. They will likely not die or lose their eyes/teeth. These are then minor injuries, instructed for no punishment by God himself.

I'll even throw you a bone here.... It would be stupid for the master to beat their slave, as this is the master's money. But thanks to the sloppy and haphazard instruction of the Bible, the slave master can:

- Beat their slave if the slave refuses to work any longer...
- Are getting too old
- Have too many work-related injuries and can no longer perform a satisfactory task
- etc etc etc.........

Since the slave is their property, if their money is no longer worth anything, they may not be allowed to destroy it, but they can certainly beat it -- (with no penalty). This would be classified as sub-human, maybe above cattle.

B) If you are not an Israelite, you could certainly be sub-human. It is a tribal religion after all. God apparently did or does favor Israelites. This is why the foreign slaves are instructed to be kept for life as property and treated more harshly, but not the Israelites - ala Leviticus 25.

C) This is the pot calling the kettle black I'm not misrepresenting or embellishing anything. You are. I've spoken nothing about the American slave trade, or the killing of slaves. This is all you. I'm simply regurgitating what the Bible instructs in Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25, and you are deflecting.

[POI]

[Replying to brunumb in post #29]

[Replying to iam1me2023 in post #28]
OK. I am not asking about slavery. Just treat this question as it is written. Do you believe that it is acceptable for one human being to own another as property or not? A simple yes or no is all that is necessary to answer that question.

You don't gain anything by avoiding the word "slavery" and instead favoring the more verbose phrasing of "owning another as property." Whichever wording you choose my answer is the same: it very much depends upon the particulars of what you mean. In some cases it maybe permissible, and in others its not.

I'm not asking if it is permissible or not, or what it might be called. It's a simple direct question.

Do you believe that it is acceptable for one human being to own another as property or not? A simple yes or no is all that is necessary to answer that question.

Thus far, this interlocutor's responses have been a continuous display if whitewashing, overreaching, rationalizations, and redirects. His/her rationale is that "the Law is fulfilled by love". It's a hard pill to swallow, to try and rationalize such a concept - when one reads the instruction manual for God's sanctioned slavery practices. This is why (s)he is not answering your simple question. The second you acknowledge another human as Biblical property, they are no longer human, but sub-human at best.