Why does the Bible permit slavery? (worship, faith, Apostle, verses)
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.
I understand what you are saying. I do tend to discuss issues like these within a framework of strict fundamentalist Christianity, since that is what I am familiar with. To someone from this background this is the only approach to discuss these issues, since the Bible is the ultimate source of knowledge and cannot be disputed. For this type of believer, external arguments of any kind are irrelevant, as only scripture is true. You are right that these issues don't really matter to someone who does not believe in the inerrancy of scripture, the unchanging moral nature of God, and the person of God as being the foundation for all morality.
For the fundamentalist, it is possible to come to a relatively consistent framework that does allow the things God commanded in the OT to be moral. My experience is that most fundamentalists don't want to. It is very uncomfortable having to accept the internal conflict that comes from trying to reconcile a loving God and a genocidal one, so most resort to handwaving or just ignore the issue.
I do agree that when viewed as myth ( a story whose value does not depend on its veracity), the Bible may have lots of interesting things to say about the human condition and about the evolution of morality. It is probably the most important book in the development of western culture. I just think that is should not be used as a literal historical text, science book, or manual of exactly what is right or wrong. If someone wants to use it that way, then they need to be prepared to critically examine it and deal with the inherent contradictions, and boldly embrace the conclusions, even if they are uncomfortable.
The issues of morality are actually a really interesting discussion to have outside of that framework. I personally lean toward the idea that a useful morality might be one based around the idea of the importance of the individual. That the ultimate good would be to respect individual human reason, and conscience as the atomic building block of a shared morality. I am just beginning to dabble in philosophy, so I am sure someone else has articulated these ideas much better than I.
Anyway, interesting topic,
NoCapo
Man I love this post. Said better than I ever could say it.
context, context, context, context-was that world 3000 years ago our world? Did that world go through the renaissance, the enlightenment, civil rights, etc? Did that world have the same values as ours? And the complex idea, was human mind (old term spirit) at the same level as ours (on a philosophy thread one should at least have a simple understanding of Hegel's Phenomenology of Mind)-it is always strange for a modern to use his values, beliefs, education, and such to go into history and form a judgment in a past world where, if one thinks about it, one's experiential knowledge as well as one's abstract knowledge is near nill. From the OT into the NT, one can easily make the case that slavery was off the approval list in the bible, but the bible- in moving time- observes the world a tad differently than the limited black and white thinking of the modern mentality-one should at least enter the realm of being a half wit before one even opens up the bible, and if one does not want any thing to do with it one should leave it alone.
It is refreshing to see someone here who understands this
I said this last night... you cannot impose modern social and political values on the the ancient people of the Bible. To do so is completely illogical.
loves, I have a couple of questions for you, then.
#1 - Do you, personally, consider slavery immoral?
#2 - Do you believe in absolute morality that is handed down by God?
context, context, context, context-was that world 3000 years ago our world? Did that world go through the renaissance, the enlightenment, civil rights, etc? Did that world have the same values as ours? And the complex idea, was human mind (old term spirit) at the same level as ours (on a philosophy thread one should at least have a simple understanding of Hegel's Phenomenology of Mind)-it is always strange for a modern to use his values, beliefs, education, and such to go into history and form a judgment in a past world where, if one thinks about it, one's experiential knowledge as well as one's abstract knowledge is near nill. From the OT into the NT, one can easily make the case that slavery was off the approval list in the bible, but the bible- in moving time- observes the world a tad differently than the limited black and white thinking of the modern mentality-one should at least enter the realm of being a half wit before one even opens up the bible, and if one does not want any thing to do with it one should leave it alone.
According to Hegel does the master know the secret of the Slave? Does the slave truly do the conscious knowledgeable Work of the master? We're in agreement; are we? But it is without doubt I WAS MASTER. Gotta' go eat.
I understand what you are saying. I do tend to discuss issues like these within a framework of strict fundamentalist Christianity, since that is what I am familiar with. To someone from this background this is the only approach to discuss these issues, since the Bible is the ultimate source of knowledge and cannot be disputed. For this type of believer, external arguments of any kind are irrelevant, as only scripture is true. You are right that these issues don't really matter to someone who does not believe in the inerrancy of scripture, the unchanging moral nature of God, and the person of God as being the foundation for all morality.
For the fundamentalist, it is possible to come to a relatively consistent framework that does allow the things God commanded in the OT to be moral. My experience is that most fundamentalists don't want to. It is very uncomfortable having to accept the internal conflict that comes from trying to reconcile a loving God and a genocidal one, so most resort to handwaving or just ignore the issue.
I do agree that when viewed as myth ( a story whose value does not depend on its veracity), the Bible may have lots of interesting things to say about the human condition and about the evolution of morality. It is probably the most important book in the development of western culture. I just think that is should not be used as a literal historical text, science book, or manual of exactly what is right or wrong. If someone wants to use it that way, then they need to be prepared to critically examine it and deal with the inherent contradictions, and boldly embrace the conclusions, even if they are uncomfortable.
The issues of morality are actually a really interesting discussion to have outside of that framework. I personally lean toward the idea that a useful morality might be one based around the idea of the importance of the individual. That the ultimate good would be to respect individual human reason, and conscience as the atomic building block of a shared morality. I am just beginning to dabble in philosophy, so I am sure someone else has articulated these ideas much better than I.
Anyway, interesting topic,
NoCapo
Good post, and Spinoza would be a good place to begin - if you already haven't tackled his works: both the Ethics and the Theologico Politico Treatise. I agree that moral issues are highly interesting outside of that framework - but also interesting within it, as well.
I ran into an interesting Jewish reaction against God's moral stance which directly has to wrestle with the belief that God is All-Powerful and All-Knowing. It concerns the Cain and Abel story, and the reaction of two rabbis to it. I suppose you could consider it an "orthodox" interpretation, though tinged with much doubt.
"The voice of your brother's blood is crying out to me from the land."
Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai said "This is a difficult thing to say and it is impossibly to say it clearly. Once two athletes were wrestling before the king. If the king wants, they can be separated; but he did not want them separated. One overcame the other and killed him. The loser cried out as he died: "Who will get justice for me from the king?" Thus: 'The voice of your brother's blood is crying out to me from the land.' " (Genesis Rabbah, 22: 9)
In case it's not clear who is being blamed for Abel's murder, another rabbi takes up the case and has another interesting view:
Cain said "Am I my brother's keeper?"
You God watch over all of creation and you're blaming me? This is like a thief who steals things at night and gets away with it. In the morning the watchman grabs him and says "Why did you steal those things?" He replied: "I'm a thief; I haven't been remiss in doing my trade, but you're a guard; why did you fail in your duties?" Then Cain said: "I killed him, true, but You created me with the evil urge in me. You watch over everything and You let me kill him. You killed him! You didn't accept my sacrifice and I was jealous." God answered: "What have you done?" The "voice of your brother's blood calls out..."
(Midrash Tanhuma, on the Torah reading for Genesis, Chapter 9)
This one is more explicit in who is to blame for Cain's murder. I brought these two things into the mix because I stumbled across references to them this morning in Back to the Sources: Reading the Classic Jewish Texts (Ed. Holtz, pp.194-195) and found them pretty interesting. It really takes the ideas of God as being All-Powerful and All-Knowing and applies them literally to the text of the Bible. They are quite old, as well. This reminds me, again, that believers have been questioning this idea for a long time, especially beginning with the book of Job (among others).
Your idea of a useful morality being based on the individual is what is being practiced today in many areas, isn't it? - and I think it's permitting anything and everything, personally. As long as it's done in the name of an individual's "rights" , then every individual seems to earn the right to do whatever they want - no matter how this affects their community. Not sure how moral that is heh heh! I don't know.... that starts entering the area of politics. I do value individuality, but it can be taken to it's logical extreme.
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.
