Why does the Bible permit slavery? (genesis, myth, Biblically, contradictions)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Or like some preacher trying to tell you that the plain words in the Bible mean something entirely different than what they plainly say.
Lev 25: The Lord spoke to Moses on Mount Sinai, saying..and they (slaves) may be your property. 46You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property.
I have no wish to argue or debate you, that is not why I am here.
I am only here to give those truly seeking to understand something they don't understand food for thought and enlightenment, if they are interested.
The simple truth is, you cannot interpret something when you don't speak the language of the thing you are reading.
You can continue to insist you "know" what the Bible and God say about slavery, but the reality is, you are clueless as to the meaning of the words.
Unless you are willing to do the work to understand and appreciate the historical context in which the Bible was written, you will continue to misunderstand and misinterpret it.
Please enlighten us ... what did slavery mean in the ancient world? How was it different than the slavery that existed in the pre-Civil War South?
Inquiring minds want to know!
You simply cannot impose modern social and political values on the the ancient people of the Bible.
The Hebrew and Greek translation of the sword "slave" actually means "servant".
Slavery back in the days spoken of in Leviticus was nothing like the slavery we know about from the Civil War days, so you shouldn't confuse the two.
Among the Israelites in Biblical times "slaves" were actually servants who sold themselves willingly to their "masters" in order to have a home, a roof over their heads.
They became part of the family they sold themselves in to and were not tortured or mistreated. They were like the folks of today with no education, no prospects, barely eeking out of living at low paying dead end jobs. By becoming servants they survived in a harsh environment where they would not have survived otherwise.
God did not invent slavery - man did.
What God did is try to regulate it humanely among his chosen people by giving Moses the instructions he did that you find in Leviticus.
You simply cannot impose modern social and political values on the the ancient people of the Bible.
The Hebrew and Greek translation of the sword "slave" actually means "servant".
Slavery back in the days spoken of in Leviticus was nothing like the slavery we know about from the Civil War days, so you shouldn't confuse the two.
Among the Israelites in Biblical times "slaves" were actually servants who sold themselves willingly to their "masters" in order to have a home, a roof over their heads.
They became part of the family they sold themselves in to and were not tortured or mistreated. They were like the folks of today with no education, no prospects, barely eeking out of living at low paying dead end jobs. By becoming servants they survived in a harsh environment where they would not have survived otherwise.
God did not invent slavery - man did.
What God did is try to regulate it humanely among his chosen people by giving Moses the instructions he did that you find in Leviticus.
And, no disrespect, but you are missing the part where the rules concerning "slavery" for an Israelite was different for a slave captured in war. If a good, moral god does indeed exist, he should not have instructed his "chosen" people to grab captives for slaves and unwilling wives I would think.
Taking a prisoner of war is immoral? Is that it? Would it have been better to just kill them?
We take POWs today, we do not enslave them, we do not enslave their women and children in perpetuity. These things are not allowed under the Geneva Convention and are appropriately labeled atrocities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheoGeek
Is it wrong to require better treatment of them than those in neighboring nations?
The point is not was someone else better or worse, the point was how can a holy, just eternal, infallible god give orders for his chosen people to engage in behavior that is now recognized by most of Christendom as being immoral and ungodly behavior?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheoGeek
Do you believe that there is anything that is absolutely right or wrong? What is that based on?
For the purposes of this discussion I am using the morality I was taught by the church in my 20 years as a Christian. Personally, I am not sure where I fall on this. I like the idea of an objective morality, but have not been able to find a comprehensive one that doesn't devolve into a subjective interpretation of its principles when push comes to shove. In practice, they all appear to be subjective to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheoGeek
He decided to allow it. It's not wrong if he makes that decision.
Since we are no longer under the Mosaic Law, this is not an option.
Not an issue. God's commands are good.
God allowed it under the Mosaic Law for a time.
As I stated above, we are no longer under the Mosaic Law, so this is not an issue.
So what you are saying is now slavery is wrong, but whatever moral principles make it so currently were overruled by God. So immoral behavior (Genocide, rape, slavery, etc...) are morally good when God commands them. This reduces morality to the whim of a God who has no problem with actions most of us would find horrific. You can understand how many of us are uncomfortable with the thought that this behavior is ever right.
My point is that obviously God cannot be both unchanging and opposed to slavery, because he clearly was not opposed to it in the OT. In fact, he doesn't condemn it in the NT either, merely exhorts humane treatment of slaves.So it appears to me that the intellectually honest position to take is that God is ok with slavery.
It is a valid, if unpopular, position to take. In fact if you are going to make any sort of claim to absolute morality, as revealed in scripture, it appears to be the only honest position.
Notice that a slave trade never really developed as it did between America and Africa in the 1600's. Yes, there was slavery among Israel and their enemies. But it was nothing that was uncommon to the time or culture...
Bingo! So, because it was considered moral at the time those books were written, that "morality" was included in the text of "God's word". However, that doesn't line-up very well with "absolute morality" that most Christians like to believe in. Does it?
So - God said being gay was bad and that's absolute morality, but God said having slaves was cool and that was simply a product of the time and culture? Seems a bit of double-standard there, no?
Bingo! So, because it was considered moral at the time those books were written, that "morality" was included in the text of "God's word". However, that doesn't line-up very well with "absolute morality" that most Christians like to believe in. Does it?
So - God said being gay was bad and that's absolute morality, but God said having slaves was cool and that was simply a product of the time and culture? Seems a bit of double-standard there, no?
I don't have an issue with the idea that God regulated something that was already happening in the culture, requiring better treatment of the ones affected.
Your problem is that you are trying to read 21st Century morality into a much much different time and culture. You are also mistakenly trying to suggest that slavery then was in any way similar to the atrocities of 200 years ago in America.
In any event, I have yet to see anyone answer the question of how they think they have a right to tell God that anything he does is immoral or wrong.
The point here is either God explicitly gave a set of laws that legitimized immoral behavior (slavery) or slavery is, in fact, morally acceptable. Just saying that it is less wrong than contemporary societies doesn't make it right. Also saying that slavery is less wrong than murder is strawman. Even if that were the case, it wouldn't make it right. The correct answer is don't commit genocide and don't enslave people, instead of trying to pick the lesser of the two evils.
So it looks to me like we are left with one of the following options:
Slavery is wrong, and an unchanging God who is the very definition of right and wrong deliberately chose to endorse a moral evil. This makes God at best a hypocrite, at worst it means that he cannot be relied on as the definition of morality.
Slavery is, or in some form can be, morally correct. According to the Bible this would include permanent and hereditary slavery for non Jews, the selling of human beings, and the general right of owners to beat and rape slaves, subject to a few conditions. This in what God laid out in the law, and thus would appear to be the form of divinely sanctioned slavery.
The Bible is wrong when it says that God gave these laws to Moses. If this is the case, why should it be trusted as a source of any moral authority?
God changes the definitions of right and wrong over time and based on who the human actors happen to be. This makes God into little more than an arbitrary tyrant who at any time can change the definitions of right and wrong.
If you believe that God is eternal, his character is unchanging, he is unquestionably good, and the Bible is the inerrant, inspired Word of God, then logically you are left with number 2. It is a logically valid position to take, but one that I personally cannot agree with.
As an Atheist, I tend to place an extremely high value on individual human liberty, since I believe there is no greater power than the individual human mind and conscience to order one's life. This is why, to me, the involuntary subjugation of another's very personhood is unacceptable.
NoCapo
Your Number 2 definition is why Christians will not have any problems with this issue. The big issue here, for me, is that it appears that non-believers are trying to convince fundamentalist believers that the Bible is not inerrant, since God did not have the moral foresight to prohibit Slavery in the Bible - or any of a number of conclusions. This is a dangerous approach - as it takes the argument into the Christian's camp, and lays the outcome in their lap. Why? Because it backs up the Christian's claim that morality is legislated by the Bible, and then gives them an excellent opportunity to show this by using Scripture. This approach prohibits the use of external arguments, and that is never a good thing....
The entire issue is just highlighting one aspect of the larger Theodicy Problem - how can there be an All-Good, All-Powerful, and All-Knowing God, given the existence of evil or undeserved suffering? Slavery is merely one facet of that problem.
Good and Evil legislated through the Bible
Number 2, though...I've highlighted some of the main claims that are being made by Christians, or being imposed on Christians by others - and by Christians, I am referring to Fundamentalist Christians.
A Christian can easily decide that all morality stems from God, via the Bible, which is the Word of God in their view. To them - where else would it come from, if the All-Powerful God created everything? This God determines what is Good and what is Evil.
A Christian can claim that all moral behavior is legislated by the laws of the Torah, and later teachings (though, granted - they no longer follow the Torah's laws, really) - so the answer to whether Slavery is wrong will be found in the Bible. In the Bible, Slavery is permitted (under certain conditions), not prohibited - it very clearly does not prohibit slavery using the laws of the Torah. Therefore, God has determined that slavery is not "evil", but possibly "good". This, of course, is assuming that the laws of the Torah could be considered as legislating, not only morality, but concepts of "evil" and "good". Since the Torah and the later teachings usually prohibit extremely wrong behavior quite clearly, the assumption can be made that since this prohibition is lacking - Slavery is not only allowed, but could be considered "good".
I assume this is an elaboration of what a Christian would say, regarding your 2nd Point? It's relatively simple how a Fundamentalist Christian (whether I agree with them or not) could escape this moral problem, in the end:
"God legislates morality through the Bible, and the Bible clearly allows slavery."
In opposition to this view, I would point out that the concepts of "good" and "evil" are not really what are dealt with in the Torah's laws; there is right behavior and wrong behavior, and the Israelite is allowed to atone for wrong behavior - as long as that behavior was accidental. There is ritually clean behavior and there is ritually impure behavior. There are laws legislating how people get along with one another. There are cultic laws concerning the religious practice. We tend to slap the labels "Good" and "Evil" on what is being legislated in the Torah, when I think this is simplifying the law codes. After all, as we know from our society - a law can be entirely neutral of moral implications or motivations, and still serve as an effective law.
A Christian could also remove this entire issue from the Problem of Theodicy by arguing the 2nd point, and by showing that God is the legislator of morality - since he created everything, is the source of everything, and he has decided (from time immemorial) what is right and wrong. He decided (via the Torah) that Slavery was right (or at the very least, permitted): end of argument. Since God decides what is right and wrong, then later (or even contemporary) human opinion on the issue does not matter. A human cannot claim that God permits the evil of slavery, when God decides what is evil. I don't agree with this, and you don't agree with this, and most people don't agree with this - BUT, a Fundamentalist Christian could use this to excuse this issue from the Theodicy Problem. This does not negate the Theodicy Problem - we are still left with it - but it merely takes one aspect of it, and using the Bible, shows it to be a non-issue.
I - myself - do not follow the arguments laid out above. These arguments can not work for most other issues of Theodicy, but they DO work for the issue of Slavery, but only because some Christians have a certain belief in the Inerrancy of Scripture and their opponents use this same belief to attack them - not to disabuse them of this mistaken view of Scripture, but to show that the belief leads to moral wrong (not a good tactic, considering where Christians percieve morality stems from).
Christians, if they wish to be so legalistic as to offend modern sensibilites, can easily show that Slavery is not a moral wrong - according to the Bible. They can use this argument, only if they believe the Bible is the Word of God (inerrant, inspired, true, a guide for life, etc) and only if an opponent forces them to rely on this belief - as was done in this thread. The argument is then kept within the bounds of the Bible, and non-Biblical arguments mean nothing. Saying that Slavery is obviously evil, does not work here. Saying that God is a tyrant because he is unchanging, does not work here. All arguments, when in this mode, are linked to the Christian's ability to use Scripture as a defense. I cannot even use of my own personal arguments to show my own personal findings, since they do not assume the Inerrancy of Scripture.
This seems to be a popular method of criticism, but not a very good one - as I hope is clear from this post, and from other posts: the non-believer can easily be trumped by the Christian on this common ground. It becomes even more likely when the Christian is responding to verse quotations out of context, and without full awareness of the issues.
Slavery, and it's relationship to the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, is one of those issues that seem to be misunderstood by both Fundamentalist Christians and non-Christians alike: they both start out with certain assumptions and claims, and tend to miss the actual point. I have yet to see any mention in response to my earlier words on the Christian as the ideal Slave.
Outside of this argument, I would say that your 4th Point puts a limitation on a God that is supposedly limitless. Spinoza had fun with this Point, and it's worthy of a post itself, if not a book. In addition, if things must be created, legislated and set in stone forever (to avoid being called a fickle tyrant) - nothing will ever happen in existence. There would be no point to creating anything, if it would remain static. Creation automatically implies Change, doesn't it?
Your 3rd Point is a bit of a strange mix. The fact that humans wrote the Bible is something I agree with, but to say that because SOME of the moral teachings in a collection of books does not match with our modern views than we cannot accept ANY moral teachings - is not the best conclusion. There are many fine proverbs, for example, that can be adopted and retained - not because of their supposed moral authority from divine authorship, but because they are common sensical and self-evident to some degree. I agree that blind acceptance of divine authority is not a good thing to follow, however. I would leave it at that, though, and not expand it, just as blindly, to discard everything. This does lead to your 1st Point, though - in which you claim that slavery is a moral evil. While I personally agree that it is a moral evil, I wouldn't claim that it's self-evident or anything like that. I would also be wary of applying modern political views to an ancient God - (yes, I'm aware of what the Christians claim for him - I'm talking outside of that argument, though). I do agree that God is not a good moral compass in all things - but ONLY in how fallible humans have portratyed him, and projected their ideas onto him, in the books of the Bible, or in sermons, or other venues. This is, again, using the argument of the Fundamentalist Christians - in which Scripture is the Word of God. I tend to side with Spinoza with the possibility that if a god DID exist, he would be much closer to how we view "Mother Nature" - rather than as a personal, talking, caring, legislating god.
I don't have an issue with the idea that God regulated something that was already happening in the culture, requiring better treatment of the ones affected.
Why would an all powerful God simply regulate an immoral act and not demand it cease?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheoGeek
Your problem is that you are trying to read 21st Century morality into a much much different time and culture. You are also mistakenly trying to suggest that slavery then was in any way similar to the atrocities of 200 years ago in America.
No, I'm not. Please show me ANYWHERE that I attempted to equate slavery of Biblical times to American slavery. My problem is that most Christians want to pick and choose their "morality" from The Bible, all the while propping up the few morals they *did* choose with "This is the inerrant word of God!". If it is inerrant and, in fact, the morality of an all-powerful creator, how would we not be expected to abide all of the morals?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheoGeek
In any event, I have yet to see anyone answer the question of how they think they have a right to tell God that anything he does is immoral or wrong.
I don't have an issue with the idea that God regulated something that was already happening in the culture, requiring better treatment of the ones affected.
Your problem is that you are trying to read 21st Century morality into a much much different time and culture. You are also mistakenly trying to suggest that slavery then was in any way similar to the atrocities of 200 years ago in America.
In any event, I have yet to see anyone answer the question of how they think they have a right to tell God that anything he does is immoral or wrong.
Good post - and the points in it are appropriate.
Very little is said about how the Biblical authors tried to reduce the harshness of slavery, and how this is evident from the laws - even later writers disagreed with earlier laws on slavery, saying that NO Israelite should ever be a slave. Only by having a good grasp of ancient slavery is this vast difference noticed. Of course, Israelite laws will favor an Israelite, rather than being a world-view - this should be obvious, and nothing to be criticized for.
Our modern political notions of slavery, from being Americans, tend to view all slavery as equivalent to the American treatment of African slaves prior to the Civil War. This is only one form of slavery, and not directly equivalent to the ideas of slavery found in the "Biblical Word" (either ANE of Greco-Roman). This doesn't excuse it - just notes that it's not the exact same.
The question of "good" and "evil" I talk about in my previous post, and I point out that if one accepts certain claims, then God is the legislator of morality. This only works if one accepts these claims, which many Christians do.
Such a touchy subject, and it's a shame that it's being pigeon-holed into the corner with the argument that God should never change his mind - which he does frequently in Scripture, as evidenced by the times Moses must save the people of Israel from God's wrath, or when Abram manages to get a concession out of God concerning Sodom and Gomorrah.
The question of "good" and "evil" I talk about in my previous post, and I point out that if one accepts certain claims, then God is the legislator of morality. This only works if one accepts these claims, which many Christians do.
Such a touchy subject, and it's a shame that it's being pigeon-holed into the corner with the argument that God should never change his mind - which he does frequently in Scripture, as evidenced by the times Moses must save the people of Israel from God's wrath, or when Abram manages to get a concession out of God concerning Sodom and Gomorrah.
Thanks for the good discussion. This can be a rather emotional one. I don't mean to discount anyone's feelings here.
I believe that if God says something is good, or moral, then it is. He never really said slavery was "good", but he did allow it (although he never said it was moral).
As for God changing his mind, I believe that to be an anthropomorphism. I believe him to be omniscient and omnipotent. He knew he was going to make the concessions he did all along.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
