• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Christians who reject the old testament and slavery

serp777

Well-Known Member
There are two slavery system co-existed among the ancient Jews. One is a helping system with Jews as workers or labors though given the same name as slaves. The other is the secular slavery system we are familiar with.

The Jews are never allowed to truly enslave their fellow Jews. It is a labor system trying to help out the poor who may have to sell themselves into the secular slavery system if an alternative is not provided. God however tried to forbid Jews from being slaves of the non-Jews. Thus the Jewish slavery system remained as a necessity till at the point it is abused by the Jews themselves. God thus called off such a Jewish slavery system through Jeremiah.

The other problem for God is that for a period of time slavery as a human establishment is accepted as moral by the most conscientious humans in this world. God either deny even the most conscientious humans or still allow "faith in Jesus" to work on them for them to be saved.

To put this in another perspective, slavery as a human establishment is by Satan's work to give God a hard job to do. However in the end, this argument only earns the non-Christians but not the Christians. It by no means says that Christians buy into what slavery is. It only means that the faith of Christians makes it possible for them to trust God against all odds.

The Jews are never allowed to truly enslave their fellow Jews.

False. There's a loophole where a master can give their slave a wife, and if the slave wants to stay with his wife and kids he must get his ear pierced and submit to the town saying "I love my master", and then he will be a slave for life. Furthermore this is irrelevant. Enslaving anyone is immoral.

God thus called off such a Jewish slavery system through Jeremiah.

No, Jesus specifically said "Slaves obey your masters".

The other problem for God is that for a period of time slavery as a human establishment is accepted as moral by the most conscientious humans in this world. God either deny even the most conscientious humans or still allow "faith in Jesus" to work on them for them to be saved.

So moral relativism basically. The morality that God specifies is dependent upon the time and culture. This still means the bible is worthless as a moral guide.


To put this in another perspective, slavery as a human establishment is by Satan's work to give God a hard job to do. However in the end, this argument only earns the non-Christians but not the Christians. It by no means says that Christians buy into what slavery is. It only means that the faith of Christians makes it possible for them to trust God against all odds

This is just a plain assertion. THe bible never says that slavery is Satan's work. God and Jesus specifically endorse slavery. Where's your biblical evidence that slavery is Satan's work
 

serp777

Well-Known Member
No, you’re mistaken. If you take the Bible to its logical and clear interpretation, the kind of slavery practiced by the Hebrews was allowed for them. That doesn’t conclude at all that all slavery, practiced by all people, in all times and places, is allowed and is moral.

It doesn't mean its immoral either. So i guess its morally neutral then since the bible has no position one way or another for non Hebrews. Also is it still right today for Hebrews to enslave other people? Would that be moral? It also means the bible is a worthless moral guide and you're advocating for moral relativism--morality depends on which culture and what time. Of course you could argue that every law or commandment in the bible only applies to the hebrews at this point if you're making this argument. You've simply just brought up even more problems for yourself by making this point.
 

MJFlores

Well-Known Member
I never said the bible or God invested slavery. The law spelled out in exodus is quite clear. Furthermore Jesus clearly tells slaves to obey their masters.

"
“Now these are the he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. 3 If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him.4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out alone. 5 But for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has broken faith with her. 9 If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. 10 If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights. 11 And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money."
Exodus 21

The bible explicitly, on a clear reading specifies the laws surrounding slavery.



You're simultaneously justifying moral relativism and also demonstrating that the bible is useless for morality and it should be rejected. Also, are you saying that the modern decendents of jacob, and those of israel today would be justified in owning slaves? This is too ad hoc and has too many problems.

How did you determine which parts of biblical morals to cherry pick? Which laws only apply to Jacob and his descendents. Why would God come up with a book that only has morals for specific cultures and people?

Slavery was an accepted economic system, today slavery is punishable under the present laws. Slavery did not originate from ancient Israel or the Hebrew race. Slavery existed even before the Bible was written.

It is true that the Bible as Paul wrote it:


Ephesians 6:5-9 New International Version (NIV)
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free.

And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

images.jpg


Do Greeks have slaves? You betcha. Otherwise Paul wouldn't have written about it. He writes to members of the Church of Christ who were in Ephesus who were slaves and slave owners. During those early times there weren't any employee-employer relationship. And such system were introduced by the pagan civilization and governments. I believe the horrific history of slavery came when slavery became a global trading business - the Atlantic Slave Trade - many many centuries after the last apostle died.


The word employee wasn't coined yet until 1825-1835 and before that your are either working with a person or a slave of someone. There were no worker's compensation, rights or guaranteed working conditions. People make slaves of those who were vanquished in war or some petty conflict.


Origin of employee
1825–35; < French employé employed, past participle of employer to employ; see -ee
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/employee

We cannot compare the ancient world with ours - where we have greater rights than they do have. Hence they have slaves, like the founding fathers of the United States of America had their own slave holdings.


images.jpg


Colossians 3:22-25 New International Version (NIV)
Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters, since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving. Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for their wrongs, and there is no favoritism.

True Christians are slaves of God and the reward of being such is written in the Bible:


Romans 6:22 New International Version (NIV)
But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life.

And being a slave of God has its rewards.
 

The Anointed

Well-Known Member
Slavery was an accepted economic system, today slavery is punishable under the present laws. Slavery did not originate from ancient Israel or the Hebrew race. Slavery existed even before the Bible was written.

It is true that the Bible as Paul wrote it:


Ephesians 6:5-9 New International Version (NIV)
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free.

And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

View attachment 23274

Do Greeks have slaves? You betcha. Otherwise Paul wouldn't have written about it. He writes to members of the Church of Christ who were in Ephesus who were slaves and slave owners. During those early times there weren't any employee-employer relationship. And such system were introduced by the pagan civilization and governments. I believe the horrific history of slavery came when slavery became a global trading business - the Atlantic Slave Trade - many many centuries after the last apostle died.


The word employee wasn't coined yet until 1825-1835 and before that your are either working with a person or a slave of someone. There were no worker's compensation, rights or guaranteed working conditions. People make slaves of those who were vanquished in war or some petty conflict.


Origin of employee
1825–35; < French employé employed, past participle of employer to employ; see -ee
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/employee

We cannot compare the ancient world with ours - where we have greater rights than they do have. Hence they have slaves, like the founding fathers of the United States of America had their own slave holdings.


View attachment 23275

Colossians 3:22-25 New International Version (NIV)
Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters, since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving. Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for their wrongs, and there is no favoritism.

True Christians are slaves of God and the reward of being such is written in the Bible:


Romans 6:22 New International Version (NIV)
But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life.

And being a slave of God has its rewards.

Good post. I, who am now 76, and who was a bond slave to the National Bank of Australia for some 45 years, am now a free man: my debt having now been paid in full..
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Slavery was an accepted economic system, today slavery is punishable under the present laws. Slavery did not originate from ancient Israel or the Hebrew race. Slavery existed even before the Bible was written.

It is true that the Bible as Paul wrote it:


Ephesians 6:5-9 New International Version (NIV)
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free.

And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

View attachment 23274

Do Greeks have slaves? You betcha. Otherwise Paul wouldn't have written about it. He writes to members of the Church of Christ who were in Ephesus who were slaves and slave owners. During those early times there weren't any employee-employer relationship. And such system were introduced by the pagan civilization and governments. I believe the horrific history of slavery came when slavery became a global trading business - the Atlantic Slave Trade - many many centuries after the last apostle died.


The word employee wasn't coined yet until 1825-1835 and before that your are either working with a person or a slave of someone. There were no worker's compensation, rights or guaranteed working conditions. People make slaves of those who were vanquished in war or some petty conflict.


Origin of employee
1825–35; < French employé employed, past participle of employer to employ; see -ee
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/employee

We cannot compare the ancient world with ours - where we have greater rights than they do have. Hence they have slaves, like the founding fathers of the United States of America had their own slave holdings.


View attachment 23275

Colossians 3:22-25 New International Version (NIV)
Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters, since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving. Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for their wrongs, and there is no favoritism.

True Christians are slaves of God and the reward of being such is written in the Bible:


Romans 6:22 New International Version (NIV)
But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life.

And being a slave of God has its rewards.
So, do you believe it is morally acceptable for a human being to own another human being as property, as defined in the Bible?

Good post. I, who am now 76, and who was a bond slave to the National Bank of Australia for some 45 years, am now a free man: my debt having now been paid in full..
That is not what is meant by slavery, and the Bible clearly makes that distinction. It is made explicitly clear in the text of the Bible that slavery is the owning of another human being as personal property that can be bought, sold and inherited, as well as beaten, married-off and raped.

SOURCES:
Leviticus 25: 44-54
Exodus 21
 
Last edited:

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
It was about just as bad. One has to separate out non-Hebrews slaves. For those that were not Hebrew slavery was for life. And one would be punished in the old south for what was considered excessive abuse of slaves. I fail to see any significant differences between the slavery in the U.S. and in the Old Testament.
The difference, Gentle Reader, is that slaves were treated as part of the family, and could only be held for so long. When released, they also had to be given materials to live on. I’m not condoning it for our time, but for back then, it was fairly lenient. At any rate, that’s the kind of slavery the Bible supports — not the kind most people are thinking of. And it still doesn’t pertain to our culture. It was never meant for our culture.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
And most pro-slavery people in those days were devout Christians with biblical reasons supporting slavery.

Define Devout™ since the Devout™ like me:

* Recognize the capital punishment the Bible describes for kidnapping [acquiring slaves]
* Don't promote rape and subjugation
* Are all abolitionist-minded

Then we can define whether you are a Devout™ skeptic or just like attacking the Bible and Devout™ Christians on forums.

Of course, had you actually ever studied the Bible instead of taking generalized incorrect potshots at it, your biblical "justification" would be those slavery-mongers who said Ham was black despite the cursed race being CANAAN as in the CANAANITES, a Semitic people.

There are True Christians™ and then there are slavery-monger degenerates of prior centuries who don't know how to study the Bible or know the Lord Jesus Christ from a hole in the head. Great people to take your own Bible cues from! NOT.
 

MJFlores

Well-Known Member
So, do you believe it is morally acceptable for a human being to own another human being as property, as defined in the Bible?


That is not what is meant by slavery, and the Bible clearly makes that distinction. It is made explicitly clear in the text of the Bible that slavery is the owning of another human being as personal property that can be bought, sold and inherited, as well as beaten, married-off and raped.

SOURCES:
Leviticus 25: 44-54
Exodus 21

We are living in the 21st century, a lot has changed of what is morally acceptable and taboo. Slavery is detestable and inhumane - it is not morally acceptable. But there is no denying that slavery happened a long time ago.

images.jpg


Way back then, the authorities [rulers of the ancient world and even in the 18th century] have laws regarding slavery. In the US of A, it had various slave codes. Slave Codes were sets of laws during the colonial period and in individual states after the American Revolution which defined the status of slaves and the rights and responsibilities of slave owners. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_codes

images.jpg


That is the darkest past of the United States but that was the prevailing US law back then. Is it morally acceptable? Since I wasn't from that time, it is not morally acceptable. What is not morally acceptable to us, might be morally acceptable to the founding fathers of the United States as they are notable slaveholders as Encyclopedia Britannica puts it:

Although many of the Founding Fathers acknowledged that slavery violated the core American Revolutionary ideal of liberty, their simultaneous commitment to private property rights, principles of limited government, and intersectional harmony prevented them from making a bold move against slavery. The considerable investment of Southern Founders in slave-based staple agriculture, combined with their deep-seated racial prejudice, posed additional obstacles to emancipation. https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Founding-Fathers-and-Slavery-1269536


For us, Slavery is not morally acceptable because our laws prohibits slavery in all forms. And when the authorities prohibits slavery, we must abide current laws and that is written in the Bible:

Romans 13:1-5 New International Version (NIV)
Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
We are living in the 21st century, a lot has changed of what is morally acceptable and taboo. Slavery is detestable and inhumane - it is not morally acceptable. But there is no denying that slavery happened a long time ago.

View attachment 23287

Way back then, the authorities [rulers of the ancient world and even in the 18th century] have laws regarding slavery. In the US of A, it had various slave codes. Slave Codes were sets of laws during the colonial period and in individual states after the American Revolution which defined the status of slaves and the rights and responsibilities of slave owners. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_codes

View attachment 23286

That is the darkest past of the United States but that was the prevailing US law back then. Is it morally acceptable? Since I wasn't from that time, it is not morally acceptable. What is not morally acceptable to us, might be morally acceptable to the founding fathers of the United States as they are notable slaveholders as Encyclopedia Britannica puts it:

Although many of the Founding Fathers acknowledged that slavery violated the core American Revolutionary ideal of liberty, their simultaneous commitment to private property rights, principles of limited government, and intersectional harmony prevented them from making a bold move against slavery. The considerable investment of Southern Founders in slave-based staple agriculture, combined with their deep-seated racial prejudice, posed additional obstacles to emancipation. https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Founding-Fathers-and-Slavery-1269536


For us, Slavery is not morally acceptable because our laws prohibits slavery in all forms. And when the authorities prohibits slavery, we must abide current laws and that is written in the Bible:

Romans 13:1-5 New International Version (NIV)
Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.
Great, you agree that slavery is wrong.

So why does the Bible endorse it and never explicitly condemns it?
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
No, this isn't about "scholarship." That word represents your own high opinion of your interpretation of biblical text
Excuse me, but screw your infantile “wounded debater” comment, sir! It IS about scholarship. Wherever biblical texts are concerned it’s always about scholarship. Why is it about scholarship? Because (if you’d bothered to actually read what I wrote) we’re dealing with texts that 1) come to us out of a different culture, 2) come to us from ancient times, 3) are heavily edited and redacted, 4) are written in ancient languages that no one uses anymore, 5) contain several different types of literature, 6) were intended for a completely different audience, other than us, 7) have several different theological perspectives, 8) etc. Those are some pretty heavy-hitting hindrances to casual reading and easy understanding, and demand ... scholarship, in order to be understood. The word “scholarship” refers to the process of sifting through these filters so that people like you can be able to even read the texts in the first place — unless, of course, you’re fluent in ancient Hebrew and Koine Greek. The word “scholarship” refers to responsible reading, as opposed to “picking up a bible and giving it a cursory glance.” The word “scholarship” refers to the tedious process of doing your work for you of actually exegeting the texts.

Furthermore, your perception of my opinion is YOUR problem; not mine. If my interpretation is perceived as “better” than yours, there are a couple of legitimate reasons for that. 1) I’ve spent a fair number of years, including years of graduate study in how to exegete biblical texts, so, yeah, when I can do that (with high honors, thank you very much), it’s going to be reflected in the quality of the interpretation. That’s my profession, so, of course I’m going to be good at it. If you don’t want a doctor’s opinion, go see a pharmacy clerk for your cancer; you won’t get much quality help. If you do go to a doctor, don’t whine about his medical opinion carrying more weight than your own.

This is about persuasion. You can't persuade a non-believer like me just as you can't persuade the thousands of other Christian sects that you ought to be recognized as the final authority on the text
Intentionally provocative hyperbole. No one (except for you, that is) claims that I’m “the final authority on the text.” You’re just pi$$ed because I’m making sense and you can’t just dismiss the Bible as a total failure, based on some archaic ideas about human slavery that happen to be recorded therein, even though I’ve gone blue in the fingers typing out — not apologetics, but explanations for why it’s there, why it doesn’t apply to us, how it can be dismissed for our context, what it meant for the writers/intended audience as opposed to us, etc. ad nauseum. In response, rather than saying, “Gee, I wasn’t aware of that; thanks for the info!” You simply resort to a load of cheap ad hominem attacks on my education and level of awareness of the subject at hand.

It’s not about persuasion, it’s about lending some sort of factual information to an “argument” that is woefully devoid of such information. Atheists generally applaud themselves for their handle on “the facts,” (which is usually the reason they give for eschewing religious belief in the first place). I’m giving you facts about the texts, themselves, about the cultures out of which they come, about the social habits of the intended audience, and now you’re whining about the presentation of those facts as “intellectual elitism?” Give me a break! This is as bad as the Trumplings who grumble about “fake news.”

When I read one hundred quotes from the Bible about slavery and none condemn it, I conclude that the Bible doesn't condemn slavery
Oh, you conclude. You mean, the “you” who hasn’t bothered to actually exegete the texts to find out why the texts don’t condemn it? You’re happy to just “give it a glance” and spout a condemnation? And you expect us to regard that uninformed opinion with any sort of factual authority?

My conclusion is further confirmed by historical facts. Other Christians, like Pope Pius IX in 1866 found nothing in divine law against the buying, selling and trading of slaves. Morally, he was wrong, but according to scripture, he was right
Pius (and others) were wrong, as you say. However: according to scripture, he was only “right” where bond-servants living in ancient Israel are concerned. According to scripture, he was wrong where 19th century American slavery was concerned, because the Bible doesn’t address 19th century American slavery issues. It does, however, address issues of oppression and dehumanization, which were hallmarks of that slavery. Plus, it presents a contradiction, which I readily admit. It pits the approval of bond-slavery against the condemnation of oppression and dehumanization. The only slack that can be cut is when Jesus taught that love for God and love for one’s neighbor (this would include the bond-slave) informs all the other laws (including the laws of bond-slavery, itself). These sorts of contradictions are problematic (as I’ve admitted previously).

Therefore, a slack-jawed, generalized statement that “the Bible condones slavery” is irresponsible, a terrible argument, and sets up a straw man argument intended to knock the Bible down as “authoritative.” Even though I’ve argued that the Bible isn’t authoritative in that regard, for the factual reasons I’ve mentioned.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
It doesn't mean its immoral either.
Yes, it does mean that, actually. We set our own morals (see below). Remember: the Bible doesn’t address any kind of slavery outside that of the bond-slave. Yes, we would still consider that immoral. But, again, the Bible is a product of culture and time period. What it condones doesn’t necessarily apply to us. we are not the intended audience, and that fact is the mitigating factor here. Let me say that again: We are not the intended audience. We are free to either accept or reject what the Bible says. The Bible is not — repeat not — the sole authority for our faith and practice. The texts have always (even since bible times) been subject to circumstance. Jesus weighed the value and authority of the texts; we do the same. You condemn it as “cherry picking,” implying that we either accept all of it unconditionally, or else reject it all, again, unconditionally.
But that’s imposing a “rule of use” that’s never been the case, where the texts are concerned, and is, in fact, one of the things Jesus cautioned against, when rebuking the Pharisees for “keeping the letter of the law” above their regard for their fellow human beings. We set our own morals for what’s best for us. We can use (or misuse) the Bible for corroboration, but its authority is not absolute for us.

So i guess its morally neutral then since the bible has no position one way or another for non Hebrews. Also is it still right today for Hebrews to enslave other people? Would that be moral? It also means the bible is a worthless moral guide and you're advocating for moral relativism--morality depends on which culture and what time. Of course you could argue that every law or commandment in the bible only applies to the hebrews at this point if you're making this argument. You've simply just brought up even more problems for yourself by making this point.
The Bible doesn’t impose morality; it records the moral morays of the writers and intended audience. Since I’m not Jewish, I couldn’t speak with any authority on how they, collectively, view slavery. But I’d be willing to bet that they condemn it. You see, they, like us, don’t treat the texts with the draconian, “all-or-nothing” approach which you seem intent upon forcing upon us. They see that the laws regarding bond-slavery do not apply in this culture.

No, I’m afraid the only problem here is you trying to tell us what me must accept or reject, and what position of authority the texts must take for us, and then telling us how hypocritical and wrong we are when we don’t play by the bogus rules you try to dole out.
 
Last edited:

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Enslaving anyone is immoral
To us, yes. Apparently, some types were not immoral to some of the biblical writers.

No, Jesus specifically said "Slaves obey your masters".
No, Jesus didn’t. Those quotes come from the writers (not Paul) of Ephesians (6:5) and Colossians (3:22).

So moral relativism basically. The morality that God specifies is dependent upon the time and culture. This still means the bible is worthless as a moral guide
Not quite. The morality that the Bible specifies is dependent upon time and culture. This doesn’t mean that the Bible is “worthless.” It means that it is what it is: a repository of written information about the theological understanding of Hebrews and early Christians. Some is applicable, some is not. That’s the way it’s always been. This has NEVER been an “all-or-nothing” approach (until, of course, we come to the heresy of sola scriptura). I invite you to not impose that upon us.
 
Last edited:

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Define Devout™ since the Devout™ like me:

* Recognize the capital punishment the Bible describes for kidnapping [acquiring slaves]
* Don't promote rape and subjugation
* Are all abolitionist-minded

Then we can define whether you are a Devout™ skeptic or just like attacking the Bible and Devout™ Christians on forums.

Of course, had you actually ever studied the Bible instead of taking generalized incorrect potshots at it, your biblical "justification" would be those slavery-mongers who said Ham was black despite the cursed race being CANAAN as in the CANAANITES, a Semitic people.

There are True Christians™ and then there are slavery-monger degenerates of prior centuries who don't know how to study the Bible or know the Lord Jesus Christ from a hole in the head. Great people to take your own Bible cues from! NOT.
I’m not buying this argument. It’s very sloppy. “True Christians” and “degenerates” are not clearly-definable terms; they’re opinion. However, your assertion about bible study is spot-on. A legitimate interpretation only comes from a proper exegesis of the texts, and the development of a reasonable theological framework.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Becasue the Bible is a product of its time and the people who wrote it.
Exactly, and thus not a reliable guide for divinely-inspired inerrenet morality.

My point isn't that the Bible is "totally wrong and immoral", I'm just taking issue with the way a lot of people purposefully try to avoid admitting the existence or implication of some of the Bible's less justifiable passages. I'm particularly irked when people say that the "slavery" mentioned in the Bible is intended to mean the same kind of slavery as "being employed by an employer" or some other equally ridiculous comparison when the Bible makes it perfectly clear that it means slaves as personal property and lays out specific rules for how you buy, sell, trade, own, beat and marry-off your slaves.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Exactly, and thus not a reliable guide for divinely-inspired inerrenet morality.

My point isn't that the Bible is "totally wrong and immoral", I'm just taking issue with the way a lot of people purposefully try to avoid admitting the existence or implication of some of the Bible's less justifiable passages. I'm particularly irked when people say that the "slavery" mentioned in the Bible is intended to mean the same kind of slavery as "being employed by an employer" or some other equally ridiculous comparison when the Bible makes it perfectly clear that it means slaves as personal property and lays out specific rules for how you buy, sell, trade, own, beat and marry-off your slaves.
Right. I never claimed it to be a reliable and inerrant guide for morality.

I understand what you’re getting at. Yes, I take issue with that, too. There are some problematic areas of the Bible that we just can’t explain away or defend equitably. MY point is that the slavery the Bible deals with is not the same kind of slavery that we normally think of when we hear “slavery.” No, that doesn’t make debt-slavery “moral.” But it does make it a better choice than the American alternative. AND, it doesn’t mean that the Bible would condone the American version, had it been in place at the time the Bible was written. That’s an irresponsible, blanket statement that’s indefensible.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
The difference, Gentle Reader, is that slaves were treated as part of the family, and could only be held for so long. When released, they also had to be given materials to live on. I’m not condoning it for our time, but for back then, it was fairly lenient. At any rate, that’s the kind of slavery the Bible supports — not the kind most people are thinking of. And it still doesn’t pertain to our culture. It was never meant for our culture.
You are conflating the treatment of fellow Hebrews, who were the equivalent to indentured servants in colonial days, with non-Hebrew slaves. Those people were slaves for life and their children were slaves as well. Do you need them verses?
 
Top