Looking for passges to justify Abraham having a slave

[clem456]

It’s important to remember that Catholics do not read the bible in a literalist or fundamentalist way.

Scripture is the inspired word of God, God intends his word to reveal himself to us.
But the authors are human beings. They were not tape recorders, they did not go into a trance and let God take control of the “pencil” beyond their will. They live in a particular time and culture which had it’s own bias and way of seeing God, it’s own way of interpreting the events around them. Inspired by God, they expressed the history and spiritual life of the Israelites through a human lens. The power and meaning of the word of God go beyond the literal meaning of the words, or the facts. The bible is not a history or science textbook, although it contains history and science.
The bible expresses a truth larger than mere facts.

Long story short, we are not required to believe that God literally condoned the slavery of human beings just because the Old Testament seems to suggest so. We are also not required to believe that God literally willed the various OT warriors to slay every last woman and child. They thought it was God’s will, and the Israelites recorded it as such, but that doesn’t necessitate literal belief in their knowledge of God’s will. The authors had an imperfect understanding of God’s motivations and will just like we do.
-This does not detract from the inspired nature of Scripture-

 

[Thorns]

Firstly, only Abraham can justify or even explain that. Secondly, You need to remember that you are looking at the past through 21st. Century American (western) culture and mores. Don’t be too quick to judge a dead and buried culture by your modern standards. You won’t gain much in understanding unless you can understand the culture in which Abraham lived in context. Good luck with that.

I sometimes wonder if we are interpreting the Ten Commandments through 21st century eyes. Where does that response end and where is the line? I see certain things as being wrong, whatever the century they occurred in.

 

[Thorns]

It’s important to remember that Catholics do not read the bible in a literalist or fundamentalist way.

Scripture is the inspired word of God, God intends his word to reveal himself to us.
But the authors are human beings. They were not tape recorders, they did not go into a trance and let God take control of the “pencil” beyond their will. They live in a particular time and culture which had it’s own bias and way of seeing God, it’s own way of interpreting the events around them. Inspired by God, they expressed the history and spiritual life of the Israelites through a human lens. The power and meaning of the word of God go beyond the literal meaning of the words, or the facts. The bible is not a history or science textbook, although it contains history and science.
The bible expresses a truth larger than mere facts.

Long story short, we are not required to believe that God literally condoned the slavery of human beings just because the Old Testament seems to suggest so. We are also not required to believe that God literally willed the various OT warriors to slay every last woman and child. They thought it was God’s will, and the Israelites recorded it as such, but that doesn’t necessitate literal belief in their knowledge of God’s will. The authors had an imperfect understanding of God’s motivations and will just like we do.
-This does not detract from the inspired nature of Scripture-

So maybe the Ten Commandments were recorded through an imperfect human lens too? Why do we pick and choose what we see as literal and what we see as allegorical?

 

[clem456]

So maybe the Ten Commandments were recorded through an imperfect human lens too? Why do we pick and choose what we see as literal and what we see as allegorical?

Why does the Church do exegesis then, if the truth of scripture, as written, is obvious to every person? It’s not a matter of personal picking and choosing, if that’s what you are getting at.
Are you saying the Church is fundamentalist or literalist in it’s interpretation of scripture?

And yes, the scriptures were told, passed on, recorded by human beings from the very start,. Human beings are, well, human beings.

The Church reads some things literally, some as allegorical, etc…
There are four senses of scripture. Keep in mind that “literal” is not the same thing as “literalist”, or “fundamentalist”. The catechism has a nice treatment of this.

 

[clem456]

Foundational background material for Catholic understanding of Scripture from Pope Benedict:
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20100930_verbum-domini_en.html#The_Interpretation_Of_Sacred_Scripture__In_The_Church
Sections 29-49 especially are relevant

A snippet:

37…
In a word, while acknowledging the validity and necessity, as well as the limits, of the historical-critical method, we learn from the Fathers that **exegesis “is truly faithful to the proper intention of biblical texts when it goes not only to the heart of their formulation to find the reality of faith there expressed, but also seeks to link this reality to the experience of faith in our present world”.**123] Only against this horizon can we recognize that the word of God is living and addressed to each of us in the here and now of our lives. In this sense, the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s definition of the spiritual sense, as understood by Christian faith, remains fully valid: it is “the meaning expressed by the biblical texts when read, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, in the context of the paschal mystery of Christ and of the new life which flows from it. This context truly exists. In it the New Testament recognizes the fulfilment of the Scriptures. It is therefore quite acceptable to re-read the Scriptures in the light of this new context, which is that of life in the Spirit”.

The need to transcend the “letter”

1. In rediscovering the interplay between the different senses of Scripture it thus becomes essential to grasp the passage from letter to spirit. **This is not an automatic, spontaneous passage; rather, the letter needs to be transcended: “the word of God can never simply be equated with the letter of the text. To attain to it involves a progression and a process of understanding guided by the inner movement of the whole corpus, and hence it also has to become a vital process”.**125] Here we see the reason why an authentic process of interpretation is never purely an intellectual process but also a lived one, demanding full engagement in the life of the Church, which is life “according to the Spirit” (Gal 5:16).

And in the context of problematic scripture passages like those dealing with slavery:

The “dark” passages of the Bible

1. In discussing the relationship between the Old and the New Testaments, the Synod also considered those passages in the Bible which, due to the violence and immorality they occasionally contain, prove obscure and difficult. Here it must be remembered first and foremost that biblical revelation is deeply rooted in history. God’s plan is **manifested progressively **and it is accomplished slowly, in successive stages and despite human resistance. God chose a people and patiently worked to guide and educate them. **Revelation is suited to the cultural and moral level of distant times **and thus describes facts and customs, such as cheating and trickery, and acts of violence and massacre, without explicitly denouncing the immorality of such things. This can be explained by the historical context, yet it can cause the modern reader to be taken aback, especially if he or she fails to take account of the many “dark” deeds carried out down the centuries, and also in our own day. In the Old Testament, the preaching of the prophets vigorously challenged every kind of injustice and violence, whether collective or individual, and thus became God’s way of training his people in preparation for the Gospel. So it would be a mistake to neglect those passages of Scripture that strike us as problematic. Rather, we should be aware that the correct interpretation of these passages requires a degree of expertise, acquired through a training that interprets the texts in their historical-literary context and within the Christian perspective **which has as its ultimate hermeneutical key “the Gospel and the new commandment of Jesus Christ **brought about in the paschal mystery”.[140] I encourage scholars and pastors to help all the faithful to approach these passages through an interpretation which enables their meaning to emerge in the light of the mystery of Christ.

 

[clem456]

cont’d
The dangers of fundamentalism:

The fundamentalist interpretation of sacred Scripture

1. The attention we have been paying to different aspects of the theme of biblical hermeneutics now enables us to consider a subject which came up a number of times during the Synod: that of the fundamentalist interpretation of sacred Scripture.[145] The Pontifical Biblical Commission, in its document The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, has laid down some important guidelines. Here I would like especially to deal with approaches which fail to respect the authenticity of the sacred text, but promote subjective and arbitrary interpretations. The “literalism” championed by the fundamentalist approach actually represents a betrayal of both the literal and the spiritual sense, and opens the way to various forms of manipulation, as, for example, by disseminating anti-ecclesial interpretations of the Scriptures. “The basic problem with fundamentalist interpretation is that, refusing to take into account the historical character of biblical revelation, it makes itself incapable of accepting the full truth of the incarnation itself. As regards relationships with God, fundamentalism seeks to escape any closeness of the divine and the human … for this reason, it tends to treat the biblical text as if it had been dictated word for word by the Spirit. It fails to recognize that the word of God has been formulated in language and expression conditioned by various periods”.[146] Christianity, on the other hand, perceives in the words the Word himself, the Logos who displays his mystery through this complexity and the reality of human history.[147] The true response to a fundamentalist approach is “the faith-filled interpretation of sacred Scripture”. This manner of interpretation, “practised from antiquity within the Church’s Tradition, **seeks saving truth for the life of the individual Christian and for the Church. It recognizes the historical value of the biblical tradition. Precisely because of the tradition’s value as an historical witness, this reading seeks to discover the living meaning **of the sacred Scriptures for the lives of believers today”,[148] **while not ignoring the human mediation **of the inspired text and its literary genres.

 

[aragonjohn1]

This comparison of translations doesn’t have any one that says the slaveowner would be put to death. Most say that slaveowner is “punished”. Exodus 21:32 gives a punishment for death of a slave by an animal to be less than that of death of a non-slave of an animal, so it’s hard to say that the punihsment for a slaveowner whose slave dies the same day he’s beaten is death.

But still it’s not the point. Manslaughter of a slave (who doesn’t die the same day) is allowed. Beating of a slave that doesn’t knock out a tooth or eye is allowed. That’s wrong. There’s no way around this. There’s no talking out of this. Devestating physical harm – including harm that may lead to death – should be denounced and not praised.

I always find it fascinating when believers treat God as limited in power and finite in knowledge. To compare and contrast with other cultures not run by all-encompassing deities is to say God is impotent in solving his people’s problems. I’m not asking for a true deus ex machina, but it’s not too much to ask that this can be worked out through non-evil means.

In order to justify the position of slavery as described in the Bible, any Biblical criticism and Biblical archaeology must somehow determine that those passages I’ve quoted so many times now are not accurate of the position of the Hebrew people or their god. The Bible has to not mean what it so very clearly says.

I don’t need to be a Mormon to say that the Native Americans were not a long lost tribe of Israel.
I don’t need to be a Muslim to say that Surah 18:29 “Whosoever will, let him believe, and whosoever will, let him disbelieve.” contradicts Surah 9:5 “Slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush.”
I don’t need to be a Christian to say that slavery is wrong and no niceties about treating slaves supercedes the malice they can be showed according to the Biblical passages.

please take off your “modern” glasses and try to understand real context and interpretation; have answered most of your questions 1 time or more. ( guessing you are sourcing like this like subjective scholars do)
how many times do we Christians have to justify the punishment of the owners of “slaves” who broke God’s law " ( like like in Isaiah ) hurt or murder of their fellow humans who are protect by them?
remember our God is perfect love, mercy, justice, and patience.

"by the fourth century Aëtius and Eunomius maintained that, because the Divine nature is simple, excluding all composition or multiplicity, the various terms and names applied to God are to be considered synonymous. Otherwise they would erroneously imply composition in God. This opinion was combated by St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Basil, and St. Gregory of Nyssa (Answer to Eunomius’ Second Book I.14). The principle of attribution received more precise statement at the hands of St. Augustine, in his investigation of the conditions of intellectual knowledge (De Genesi ad Litteram, IV, 32). "

God bless

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

The arrogance and chronological snobbery of atheists like “Mike” is that he presumes to judge Abraham for having a “slave” as if if he lived Abraham’s life in that time and place that there’s no way that he would own a slave.

It’s impossible for him to know that with any certainty.

There’s no need for quotes. I’m really Mike
Anyway I can’t say for certain that if I were to live in that time and place that I wouldn’t own a slave. I’d like to think that I’d have the basis of the upbringing that I have now and that all men at all civilized times should have: The ability look a man in the eye and treat him for what he is worth. So long as I have that I can hope that I’d have the moral compass to do what is right.

But really, if you’ve read what I’ve written so far, my complaints aren’t with Abraham or his contemporaries. My trouble is what is said to be the source of wisdom and morality that fails on its face immediately with regard to one man owning and harming another.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

As soon as subjective moral agents without full access to the truth are involved in moral deliberations then there is an ‘in principle’ conflict that occurs between what is morally obligatory and what has been subjectively determined as ‘right’ by the subjective agent. Where the subjective determination of an agent is discordant with the absolute moral truth or obligation, the subjective agent will view it as an infringement of his/her right to self-determination.

So what is this absolute moral truth that the subjective agents are not in alignment with? In North Korea, the absolute moral truth is to serve the state. The only conflicts that come about are whether a person is not against or not fully with the state. There are no worries about clashing rights when there are none.

I do not think it is that difficult to determine what the nature of ‘good’ is, what is difficult is to have subjective moral agents comply with the determination. This is precisely the point at which some form of coercion is typically applied. It is the reason even modern western states have police, jails and courts to impose limitations on the freedoms of some.

Would you agree that each man is deserving of a baseline of freedoms? It’s not perfect but the quote by Zachariah Chafee, “Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man’s nose begins,” isn’t a bad place to start.

This takes us back to the point about slavery. It is not just in marriage, but in the nature of morality itself, as obligatory, that we encounter a conflict between freedom and limits on that freedom.

This is one of those items, slavery, which I believe falls well under the baseline of freedoms each man naturally deserves.

I would argue that in some times and cultures the kind of limitations on freedoms decried today - and for good reason - might have been necessary.

You’ve stated it but you haven’t argued it, in so much that you haven’t given a reason why slavery would be necessary.
Remember I asked you several questions twice based on your assertion that by allowing slavery it may have prevented greater wrongs. I’ll ask again:

What greater wrongs would have occurred had slavery been outright forbidden by God?
With slavery forbidden now, are those wrongs occurring now?
If so, would it be better if we once again allowed and encouraged slavery?

I am not clear where your evidence for such a claim is to be found. How do you know what most slaves in the time of the Patriarchs (your use of “biblical times” seems deliberately contrived to open the issue to further objections) did not agree to the terms?

The children of slaves were slaves forever. Their children were slaves forever, as were their children, and their children’s children. Slaves taken from other countries were slaves forever (and considering the number of peoples taken over in the Bible, that was a lot). Fathers could sell their unwilling daughters into slavery. Simple math suggests that those people who weren’t conquered or born into it or sold by their parents were a fraction of those that were.

The specific example of Hagar (slave of Abraham) seems to contradict this claim.

Your example seems to be atypical. Would it be fair to say that in most cases if a slave owner releases a slave, that slave wouldn’t be forced to wander into the wilderness with some bread and a single bottle of water?

I would argue that this would have been the case in many ‘slave’ situations at the time. Keeping ostracized or refugee individuals from other cultures would have been a mercy to them. In fact, the law concerning a male slave who married a female slave belonging to a ‘household’ was intended to insure the safety of the family unit since an impetuous male leaving the safety of the community would have endangered the lives of the entire family unit.

So a man who wants his freedom is impetuous? I see him as striving for what’s inside all of us. Also you can’t use the problems that come with slavery (like leaving it) to argue in favor of slavery. If there was no slavery then there would not be a problem with slaves being ostracized.

The fact that you disagree that specific punitive measures did not accord with your view of the ‘justice’ does not mean these might not have been warranted at the time for the sake of communal safety. You would need to show a more encompassing argument that such measures were beyond justification AT THE TIME and given the circumstances.

Punitive measures are for criminals. A slave has committed no crime except for being born into a society or captured by members of a society that is willing to ignore their consciences.

This misses my point completely. You gesture towards untruths and ‘cults’ in an attempt to disparage my point which was if God is ultimate truth (Being itself) then whatever we may subjectively ‘feel’ regarding our freedoms may in fact be contrary to the truth, to moral obligation and even to our own true best interests. In this case we would simply be wrong in insisting on ‘being free.’

No, I got your point. The thing is you’re focusing on the inital act (slavery) and the final outcome (becoming a christian), with any talk of freedom pointless since the value of such freedom is microscopic compared to knowing the truth of christianity.

But as I noted if the method that brings people to christianity has man doing evil against man then the method itself is evil. I know you don’t think much of the rights of man in an earthly sense, but God cares. He is said to judge us based on our actions to others. He wants us to treat each other kindly, yet allows the most serious forms of unkindness. On top of that, God is said to be fervantly in favor of men coming to him via freewill. The whip and the chain has a way of eradicating that freewill.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

This brings me back to my point that ‘freedom’ devoid of an identifiable end good is incomprehensible and irrational. There is no value in pursuing ‘freedom’ for its own sake, which is often spouted as the mantra of liberal democrats.

History is lined with people who have denied the rights of others to maintain control. A right must be forbidden when there is a clear harm to others, and not because it would lead to something other than someone is uncomfortable with it.

Logically speaking, this is also the reason why slavery, as a state of freedom restriction, is not wrong, in principle. The question always must be raised in the context of restricted from what end and for what reason.

Logically speaking, there must have been numerous better ways to achieve your interpetation of good. Historically speaking, slavery’s evils have always outweighed any crumbs of good thousands of times over. Emotionally speaking, it’s almost incomprehensible.

By this logic, it can be shown that pre-Civil War chattel slavery (restriction of the freedoms of some in order to materially profit others) was moral wrong, but that the kind of slavery present in some ancient times (restriction of the freedoms of some in order to insure the welfare of those individuals themselves and the community at large) might have been permissible and, even, necessary.

This involves a much more exhaustive analysis of the situation than you have provided. I am not saying that I have made that case, but I am claiming there could very well be a case to be made and that your argument is weak precisely because you haven’t considered this point.

Then make your case. Don’t just state that there might be a case, make it. Show us how an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being of pure goodness can’t come up with a strategy to bring people to him that doesn’t involve telling his believers to do heinous acts. Show us how God cares so deeply about our freewill (an argument often made on CAF as to why God doesn’t announce his existence to the modern world) yet has no care at all for the freewill of children born into slavery. Make your case.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

It’s important to remember that Catholics do not read the bible in a literalist or fundamentalist way.

Scripture is the inspired word of God, God intends his word to reveal himself to us.
But the authors are human beings. They were not tape recorders, they did not go into a trance and let God take control of the “pencil” beyond their will. They live in a particular time and culture which had it’s own bias and way of seeing God, it’s own way of interpreting the events around them. Inspired by God, they expressed the history and spiritual life of the Israelites through a human lens. The power and meaning of the word of God go beyond the literal meaning of the words, or the facts. The bible is not a history or science textbook, although it contains history and science.
The bible expresses a truth larger than mere facts.

Now this is important, because the key word here isn’t necessarily “facts” but “truth”. Catholics and other christians who don’t take a completely infallible Bible do still believe that each verse is true in some way, whether it be allergoral, spiritual, or literal. At no point can something that isn’t to be taken literally mean the exact opposite of its literal meaning and still be true.

You can’t say that it’s raining buckets or raining cats and dogs and have the truth be that it’s a bright and sunny day. So let’s remember that as we continue…

Long story short, we are not required to believe that God literally condoned the slavery of human beings just because the Old Testament seems to suggest so. We are also not required to believe that God literally willed the various OT warriors to slay every last woman and child. They thought it was God’s will, and the Israelites recorded it as such, but that doesn’t necessitate literal belief in their knowledge of God’s will. The authors had an imperfect understanding of God’s motivations and will just like we do.
-This does not detract from the inspired nature of Scripture-

In your examples, if God is quoted as saying that people are to do something or not do something, and God means the opposite then it is not true. It is not allegory. It is not subjective. It is not an idiom. It is simply wrong.

Think of it this way. Genesis has God creating the universe in six days. Some will say that this doesn’t mean six literal days. Fine. But if we apply the reckoning that you do with the slavery passages, that it’s possible to correctly interpet that God didn’t create the universe at all!

As I said before when talking about the word “context”, to say the Bible isn’t literally true or that the Bible isn’t a history book doesn’t just wipe away any and all criticism for a particular group of passages. If it contains truth in either a literal or non-literal sense it has to be shown how it is true. Again, it can’t mean the opposite of its literal meaning and still be true.

God’s plan is manifested progressively and it is accomplished slowly, in successive stages and despite human resistance. God chose a people and patiently worked to guide and educate them. Revelation is suited to the cultural and moral level of distant times and thus describes facts and customs, such as cheating and trickery, and acts of violence and massacre, without explicitly denouncing the immorality of such things.

When teaching someone, you don’t teach them incorrectly only to later attempt to correct them. You can’t show people that slavery is wrong by outlining a multitude of ways where it is accepted. As I’ve noted before, there is no indication at any point that God is showing slavery and the treatment of slaves allowed in the Bible is wrong. At what point was he planning to correct this oversight?

This can be explained by the historical context, yet it can cause the modern reader to be taken aback, especially if he or she fails to take account of the many “dark” deeds carried out down the centuries, and also in our own day.

Hi, moral relativism! Please ignore the atrocities encouraged by God because there were at least a few other cultures that were worse.

In the Old Testament, the preaching of the prophets vigorously challenged every kind of injustice and violence, whether collective or individual, and thus became God’s way of training his people in preparation for the Gospel. So it would be a mistake to neglect those passages of Scripture that strike us as problematic. Rather, we should be aware that the correct interpretation of these passages requires a degree of expertise, acquired through a training that interprets the texts in their historical-literary context and within the Christian perspective which has as its ultimate hermeneutical key “the Gospel and the new commandment of Jesus Christ brought about in the paschal mystery”.

So only when studied with the conclusion in mind that the Gospel is correct and God is perfect can one get the conclusion that the Gospel is correct and that God is perfect? Where does that leave an open and critical viewer?

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

please take off your “modern” glasses and try to understand real context and interpretation; have answered most of your questions 1 time or more. ( guessing you are sourcing like this like subjective scholars do)

It’s an interesting metaphor. In fact I saw a video with Ken Ham (the Answers In Genesis guy) where he’s telling a group of children to make sure to put on their biblical glasses when looking at science. I think I’ve done a good job so far in not assailing the ancient culture, but going after God. For you see God is said to be perfect, devoid of sin, and unchanging.

how many times do we Christians have to justify the punishment of the owners of “slaves” who broke God’s law " ( like like in Isaiah ) hurt or murder of their fellow humans who are protect by them?

One time would be good. I don’t mean attempting to justify it but actually show that slavery as described in the Bible is not evil. Truly justify how a perfect God would not speak out against such acts. Justify how not telling an ancient culture that slavery is wrong is the best course of action when he seemed to not want to ween that very same culture off of other much less despicable acts.

remember our God is perfect love, mercy, justice, and patience.

Keeping solely on the topic I would say slavery (which God permits) is none of these things.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I think it’s important to take a minute and explain why I’m being what my late Italian Catholic mom would call a “noodge”. We all hold various ideas, not just in religion but in political positions, moral outlooks, personal views; and those ideas may have some troubling aspects to them.

I’m not looking to deconvert anybody but I want to make sure that people aren’t avoiding the tough questions. It’s often on CAF where a person will bringing up a doubt or struggle with a not-so-nice passage. Sometimes they will get arguments that systematically and logically defend a postion, and other times they will be told to brush their struggles aside and quell their doubts. It’s these latter instances that I dislike.

I’m writing on this topic and will continue to do so in case there is anybody out there following it who has the same concerns that Strawberry Jam had. In case someone searches for this topic in the future I want them to see this thread and see both sides argued vigorously. I don’t want people to think that they can just brush aside some of the worst actions man has ever taken up against his fellow man (and in some case does so to this day). It’s too easy to say Jimmy Akin wrote an article so there must be a good reason to defend it, or such-and-such poster seems to be able to string a few sentences together so maybe I don’t have to worry if slavery in the Bible was bad. Even if a person sees this and decides to research themselves then that’s a good thing.

If a person does their homework and maintains their faith, then it’s an honest faith. It’s not one I agree with but I can’t begrudge them. All I ask is not to handwave those troublesome parts aside and without applying a watchful eye like we should do with all things.

I feel passionately about these issues like slavery and murder and freedom. I’m going to have to run and find my old thesaurus soon since I’m running out of adjectives to describe how wrong things like slavery are. No matter if the stories are allegorical, this is something that affects real people. Last year I was part of another thread where the subject turned to Lot and there were arguments in favor of Lot asking to have his daughters raped by a gang of men. It’s very had not to get worked up when reading something like that. It’s also another instance where “the Bible isn’t a history book” is utterly insufficient as an argument and only serves to rile up the anger in people like myself (sometimes for better but usually worse).

In short, I ask whatever happens that people see everything presented so far and come to your own conclusions. Don’t just assume the conclusion you want to be right is. If in the end you think me a fool, then perhaps I am

Thanks.

 

[clem456]

Now this is important, because the key word here isn’t necessarily “facts” but “truth”. Catholics and other christians who don’t take a completely infallible Bible do still believe that each verse is true in some way, whether it be allergoral, spiritual, or literal. At no point can something that isn’t to be taken literally mean the exact opposite of its literal meaning and still be true.

You can’t say that it’s raining buckets or raining cats and dogs and have the truth be that it’s a bright and sunny day. So let’s remember that as we continue…

In your examples, if God is quoted as saying that people are to do something or not do something, and God means the opposite then it is not true. It is not allegory. It is not subjective. It is not an idiom. It is simply wrong.

Think of it this way. Genesis has God creating the universe in six days. Some will say that this doesn’t mean six literal days. Fine. But if we apply the reckoning that you do with the slavery passages, that it’s possible to correctly interpet that God didn’t create the universe at all!

As I said before when talking about the word “context”, to say the Bible isn’t literally true or that the Bible isn’t a history book doesn’t just wipe away any and all criticism for a particular group of passages. If it contains truth in either a literal or non-literal sense it has to be shown how it is true. Again, it can’t mean the opposite of its literal meaning and still be true.

I think we are talking past each other, or you are overthinking what is being said.
Scripture conveys God’s truth in the way that God intends. He inspires it. (And by the way, this is very tough to accept outside of faith, so our conversation could be pointless anyway). Human beings write scripture. God’s will and truth are accomplished with the cooperation of human beings. Human beings have flawed or imperfect conceptions of the will of God. Ancient peoples interpreted God’s will and action in historical events differently that we do today. For example, if misfortune befell someone, to the ancient mind that meant they had sinned or offended God in some way, and the illness or accident was God’s way of punishing them. So that’s what they wrote. That doesn’t mean God literally wished to punish them. This is the danger of fundamentalism, that refuses to account for historical and cultural context. In effect, it makes reading scripture a purely personal and narrow endeavor trapped in the words on a page and in the mind of the reader.

When teaching someone, you don’t teach them incorrectly only to later attempt to correct them. You can’t show people that slavery is wrong by outlining a multitude of ways where it is accepted. As I’ve noted before, there is no indication at any point that God is showing slavery and the treatment of slaves allowed in the Bible is wrong. At what point was he planning to correct this oversight?

Hi, moral relativism! Please ignore the atrocities encouraged by God because there were at least a few other cultures that were worse.

So only when studied with the conclusion in mind that the Gospel is correct and God is perfect can one get the conclusion that the Gospel is correct and that God is perfect? Where does that leave an open and critical viewer?

God does not change. He was not at one time in favor of murder and slavery, and at other times against. God does not change. God has never encouraged atrocities. That is a flawed human representation of God. (Have you ever made a mistake in relaying a concept to someone?)
All of scripture must be read in light of the Gospel. The word of God is not just a something, it is a somebody. Jesus Christ is God’s only, final, complete, Word. If it doesn’t pass Jesus Christ’s gaze as true and good, then it’s not true and good. So God has never approved of slavery and murder. Rather, human beings have enslaved and murdered one another using the name of God, while God has patiently rebuked us and still loved us. Human beings are not God, and do not know God’s will very well in many cases.
In short, ancient peoples had slaves and murdered each other in God’s name because that is simply how they lived. They were ignorant of God’s will and their cultures simply expressed this. We as human beings today are also ignorant and sinful, as is evident. And we continue to give God a bad name among people by our actions and words. All of us. Those who are called to live the Christian life frequently do great damage to it, because we profess to know and love God, and it turns out we don’t very well. We haven’t changed much from the ancient peoples, even though we have the blessing of the Gospel.
But God is still God who loves.

 

[Amandil]

There’s no need for quotes. I’m really Mike
Anyway I can’t say for certain that if I were to live in that time and place that I wouldn’t own a slave. I’d like to think that I’d have the basis of the upbringing that I have now and that all men at all civilized times should have: The ability look a man in the eye and treat him for what he is worth. So long as I have that I can hope that I’d have the moral compass to do what is right.

So in other words you’re admitting that you’re begging the question and arguing in a circle.

But really, if you’ve read what I’ve written so far, my complaints aren’t with Abraham or his contemporaries. My trouble is what is said to be the source of wisdom and morality that fails on its face immediately with regard to one man owning and harming another.

So if you’re begging the question and arguing in a circle in the first instance how do you know that you’re not also in the second?

And if according to you the source of morality is relative and subjective, on what basis does your moral indignation towards the Bible? What criteria do you have to base that on? You send your own biases and prejudices?

If morality is subjective and relative, then what was “moral” for you now was also just as “moral” for Abraham and other Bedouin cultures in their day.

Which means that slavery was “moral” to them just as its “immoral” to you and you really have no grounds to disagree on any moral basis at all.

So, to be frank, that’s hypocrisy. You’re demanding that “Abraham”(whatever this image of him must reside in your mind) must abide by your moral standards objectively while maintaining a position that morality is individual, subjective, and relative.

So it follows that 1)you’re to dim to see the self-contradictory position that you have(which I don’t believe) or 2) your assertion is based solely on your own biases and prejudices against God and you are abiding by those prejudices and biases by claiming moral superiority over God. Which is an obvious and absurd double-standard and undercuts your whole argument.

If you were honest at best all you could say is that you disagreed with slave ownership ** according to your opinion**. Agree to disagree. And that’s it.

By making this a moral argument you violate your own philosophy thus nullifying the argument altogether.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I think it’s important to take a minute and explain why I’m being what my late Italian Catholic mom would call a “noodge”. We all hold various ideas, not just in religion but in political positions, moral outlooks, personal views; and those ideas may have some troubling aspects to them.

I would agree with your “late Italian Catholic mom” on her assessment of your unabashed behaviour.

Speaking of Italian Catholic moms, this brings up an analogy to the topic of slavery and the way it is viewed in modern “progressive” ideologies.

Growing up, my Italian Catholic mom was not adverse to using a wooden spoon as a method of discipline. We all respected her ‘right’ to use it and equally respected its efficacy in terms of getting the job done. We also never, for one moment doubted that her motives for using it were always tied to her great love for us and her desire for us to be the best we could be. For her, discipline was key and far exceeded ‘freedom’ as a basic requirement for a happy, stable family and community. Those of us, among relatives and friends, who prioritize responsibility and self-discipline have fared far better in terms of stability and general happiness than those who have placed ‘freedom’ higher. Freedom always takes its toll on bystanders.

Looking back on our family history, a modern progressive thinker might condemn my mother as being an abusive woman based solely on the fact that she was not averse to using corporal punishment, just as you are prepared to condemn God based solely on your modern conception of the ‘wrongness’ of slavery.

At bottom, this is what I think is wrong with your argument against God vis a vis rules about slavery. You don’t seem to ‘know’ God, in the same way that a modern progressivist thinker does not ‘know’ my Italian Catholic mother. You feel free to condemn the God you don’t know based upon a perception of wrong that is essentially tied to a conceptual assessment devoid of real-world connections.

After over thirty years in public schools as an educator and seeing first-hand the results of a gradual decline of a healthy respect for the priority of discipline and responsibility over ‘freedom’ (however that is understood) I would not for one moment trade the loving concern of my mother for the detached neutrality of many moderns. Her ‘hands-on’ methods were precisely that because she understood that attainment of end-goods were key to happiness and self-discipline was the most important means to attaining them.

What we have today is a complete failure (among modern progressivists) to identify end-goods at all so none are willing to put much of a stake on attaining them. The move is to let others, including our children ‘figure it out for themselves.’ Clearly, that move is made because sight of the ‘end good’ has been lost. What would be the point, in their eyes, of putting at stake any present good for the sake of some future intangible?

If you look at every moral issue alive today, it comes down to a conflict between immediately available goods (and freedom to choose them) and longer term teleological ends, which are increasingly portrayed as ‘pie in the sky.’

What is completely forgotten, however, is that personal virtues (and, therefore, personal happiness) are often tied to the disciplined habits and fine-tuning of what Aristotle would call the “daimōn” (“spirit”) by a determined mindfulness over one’s “aretē” or “virtue” (excellence) by “phronesis,” the “practical or ethical wisdom.” Aristotle saw eudaimonia (the highest human good or ‘happiness’ to be the cultivated result of sound practical philosophy and human wisdom. He (and I) would warn against a view that license - in the sense of subjective personal freedom - of itself - has any claim in terms of being conducive to human flourishing.

Ultimately, I do think this is the ground of an argument for why servitude is not necessarily an evil in itself. The external situation does not stop any human from cultivating personal virtue that would lead to real happiness in the Aristotelian sense that was likely an aspect of ancient cultures, generally. Socrates argued that evil is not something that is done to a person, but done to oneself.

Thus, a slave or servant could be virtuous in a far more important sense than what you would accept. An emperor or slave owner may put themselves into far greater jeopardy regarding their own temporal (and eternal) happiness than a servant or even a chattel slave.
Herod the Great, Caligula or Nero come to mind here. I would be far more willing to accept the life of a slave than assume the life of either of those three ‘gentlemen.’

Perhaps you view this differently, but I would be far more willing to accept a fate at Auschwitz than to be Hitler or one of his henchmen. The external ‘benefits’ would be considered a ‘trifle’ in exchange for the real interior harm. All things being equal the external comforts pale in comparison to interior goods - truth, goodness and beauty. Slavery might deprive someone of some externals, but the internals are, ultimately what count.

I think it was Teresa of Avila who said in light of eternity our present life is comparable to one night in an inconvenient hotel. I would add that the ‘internal goods’ of the soul (truth, beauty and goodness) are glimpses into eternity and cause the external goods to pale in comparison.

Continued…

 

[Peter_Plato]

…from previous

Do I, therefore, condone slavery? Not at all, but precisely because any conditions for desiring it fail to have any appeal whatsoever. The problem comes when more than a modicum of temporal goods are emphasized and given undue importance. As soon as the “temporal” becomes all encompassing (as it does in any materialist ideology) THAT is when the very conditions for slavery are initiated. Slavery (in its most abhorrent forms) is a byproduct of materialism - that temporal things have more value than people.

Unfortunately, modern views on abortion and contraception embody materialism at their core, which is why in our materialist culture, these seem quite permissible. We have lost our souls, which is precisely why we view the external circumstances of a person’s life to be more valuable than the internal state of their being.

My guess would be that the very reason you decry ‘slavery’ is because it unjustly deprives some persons of those external goods, completely overlooking the interior state of their being as inconsequential to the question.

 

[clem456]

The subjugation of one person by another with the deprivation of rights is objectively evil. Slavery is not merely some “external” situation separated from spiritual realities. A person enduring slavery may progress in virtue and/or holiness despite the state of slavery, but that in no way justifies slavery.

A person has rights from God. Justice demands the respect of those rights. No amount of “good out of evil” can change that.

2414 The seventh commandment forbids acts or enterprises that for any reason - selfish or ideological, commercial, or totalitarian - lead to the enslavement of human beings, to their being bought, sold and exchanged like merchandise, in disregard for their personal dignity. It is a sin against the dignity of persons and their fundamental rights to reduce them by violence to their productive value or to a source of profit. St. Paul directed a Christian master to treat his Christian slave "no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother, . . . both in the flesh and in the Lord."194

 

[Peter_Plato]

The subjugation of one person by another with the deprivation of rights is objectively evil. Slavery is not merely some “external” situation separated from spiritual realities. A person enduring slavery may progress in virtue and/or holiness despite the state of slavery, but that in no way justifies slavery.

A person has rights from God. Justice demands the respect of those rights. No amount of “good out of evil” can change that.

There are good reasons to doubt the ‘absolute’ sense that you portray deprivation of rights. You might, likewise, claim that the subjugation or deprivation of the rights of children is intrinsically evil. I would answer that there is nothing intrinsic about it. The issue is about whose rights and for what ends.

A child’s right of movement is rightly curtailed by parents concerned about danger to the child that the child may not have the capacity to judge. In some sense, an agent who has a better capacity to make judgements may have superseding responsibilities regarding rights and freedoms. I doubt these kinds of rights are ‘in principle,’ however, for the same reason I doubt that freedoms are, even though restrictions of freedoms are ONLY permitted for warranted reasons.

The freedom individuals have is in pursuit of their own true well-being, not to ANY willed end. Freedom to harm your own well-being ought not be promoted or even tolerated, even though this may be beyond anyone’s capacity to insure. This is where obligations or responsibilities also come into play. Obligations are natural restrictions on rights and freedoms that arise when the rights and freedoms of some come into conflict with those of others.

In an important sense, obligations ‘subjugate’ the rights and freedoms of some to those of others, precisely because of the demands of justice and morality.

I never claimed that virtue or holiness justifies slavery, I merely noted that slavery is not logically incompatible with virtue or holiness. Given that virtue and holiness are more basic to and, at the same time, of more worth than physical freedom, and not necessarily incompatible with it, there is nothing intrinsically good about liberty in this sense and nothing intrinsically evil about constraint.

That is not to say slavery or subjugation are always right and good. They aren’t. But freedom and self-determination are good only to the extent that these function to promote and achieve intrinsic good. In other words, freedom and self-determination are only instrumentally good, not intrinsically good, which is why curtailment of these cannot be intrinsically evil, but may be (and at the time very likely are) evil in light of the deprivation of real intrinsic goods to those deprived of certain freedoms. The evil is in deprivation of intrinsic goods, not necessarily of freedoms, which are a different matter.

 

[aragonjohn1]

Now this is important, because the key word here isn’t necessarily “facts” but “truth”. Catholics and other christians who don’t take a completely “infallible Bible” do still believe that each verse is true in some way, whether it be allergoral, spiritual, or literal. At no point can something that isn’t to be taken literally mean the exact opposite of its literal meaning and still be true.

You can’t say that it’s raining buckets or raining cats and dogs and have the truth be that it’s a bright and sunny day. So let’s remember that as we continue…

“In your examples, if God is quoted as saying that people are to do something or not do something, and God means the opposite then it is not true. It is not allegory. It is not subjective. It is not an idiom. It is simply wrong.”

Think of it this way. Genesis has God creating the universe in six days. Some will say that this doesn’t mean six literal days. Fine. But if we apply the reckoning that you do with the slavery passages, that it’s possible to correctly interpet that God didn’t create the universe at all!

As I said before when talking about the word “context”, to say the Bible isn’t literally true or that the Bible isn’t a history book doesn’t just wipe away any and all criticism for a particular group of passages. If it contains truth in either a literal or non-literal sense it has to be shown how it is true. Again, it can’t mean the opposite of its literal meaning and still be true.

"When teaching someone, you don’t teach them incorrectly only to later attempt to correct them. You can’t show people that slavery is wrong by outlining a multitude of ways where it is accepted. As I’ve noted before, “there is no indication at any point that God is showing slavery and the treatment of slaves allowed in the Bible is wrong. At what point was he planning to correct this oversight?”

Hi, moral relativism! Please ignore the atrocities encouraged by God because there were at least a few other cultures that were worse.

So only when studied with the conclusion in mind that the Gospel is correct and God is perfect can one get the conclusion that the Gospel is correct and that God is perfect? Where does that leave an open and critical viewer?

"there is no indication at any point that God is showing slavery and the treatment of slaves allowed in the Bible is wrong. At what point was he planning to correct this oversight?

Hi, moral relativism! Please ignore the atrocities encouraged by God because there were at least a few other cultures that were worse.

So only when studied with the conclusion in mind that the Gospel is correct and God is perfect can one get the conclusion that the Gospel is correct and that God is perfect? Where does that leave an open and critical viewer?"

“there is no indication at any point that God is showing slavery and the treatment of slaves allowed in the Bible is wrong. At what point was he planning to correct this oversight?”

to not judge but learn. ^

again they except for a small group in Isaiah 40-43 had no slaves but fellow men who share in the Jewish covenant. back then the patriarchs or leaders of a family were the only law. the only sure way a minority or another Jew could be safe was to join a family group who could protect them.

God does not sin He is Just balanced by mercy.

You and i are His witnesses and we cannot fathom the depths of God. He just Gives. is the many instances of God’s law in the torah we mention enough or is the punishment of a person who harms another un-merited? God gives everything a purpose for His will; sin is still not of God.

“infallible Bible”

inerrant the holy word cannot speak only give.

“In your examples, if God is quoted as saying that people are to do something or not do something, and God means the opposite then it is not true. It is not allegory. It is not subjective. It is not an idiom. It is simply wrong.”

God’s law in love never changes please explain?

“Fine. But if we apply the reckoning that you do with the slavery passages, that it’s possible to correctly interpet that God didn’t create the universe at all!”

not slavery covenant.

if, You can prove otherwise glad to listen.

God bless