New Testament on slavery

[Mmarco]

I’ll simplify it. …God saying slavery is immoral and God telling people how to buy, breed, blackmail, harm, and kill slaves are two mutually exclusive concepts.

Again, I see no relevant points; there are no mutual exclusive concepts. God allowed certain practices because the Hebrews was not ready to accept the perfect moral laws because of the hardness of their heart. It is very simple; we are talking about ancient peoples, and slavery was considered logical in their underdevelopped cultures.

More importantly, why did God put his foot down on some things (like working the Sabbath. murder, rape. and celebrating the three yearly festivals) and not slavery?

I have already explained this; the Hebrews would have considered absurd and inacceptable such teaching and they would have rejected Moses as their leader.

You are wrong to suggest that they were bound to own slaves in the future. If God had added an eleventh command to not own slaves then the Hebrews as a whole would not do so.

No, you are wrong; a law against slavery would have never been accepted; such a law would have caused the failure of Moses’ mission.

We don’t teach our children that it’s okay to hit others then expect them not to hit others as an adult. If you’re saying the Hebrew were not ready then they needed the law made clear that it’s wrong from the very start.

No, you are wrong; we live in a totally different society; you cannot compare our moral standards to the moral standards of ancient peoples. This is simply ridiculous.

God has created man with a free will and He respects our free will; therefore He does not “impose instructions” on us.

Are you serious? Are you saying God did not tell people what is right and wrong?

Certainly God teaches us what is is right and wrong; what I meant is that we remain free to choose whether obey or not.

They did rebel when they were told not to store excess mana.They rebelled when they were told not to make false idols, and many were killed as a result. God imposed multiple rules on his people, and those who didn’t follow were severely punished. There’s no reason whatsoever not to add slavery to that list.

Au contraire; some of the Hebrews rebelled against laws that were less inacceptable than a law against slavery for their culture.
A law against slavery would have not been accepted by almost the totality of the Hebrews and therefore Moses would have been rejected as a leader.

Leviticus 18:3
You must not follow the practices of the land of Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not follow the practices of the land of Canaan, into which I am bringing you. You must not walk in their customs.

I see no relevance with the present issue.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Again, I see no relevant points; there are no mutual exclusive concepts. God allowed certain practices because the Hebrews was not ready to accept the perfect moral laws because of the hardness of their heart. It is very simple; we are talking about ancient peoples, and slavery was considered logical in their underdevelopped cultures.

I’ll bring up the parenting analogy again. If someone doesn’t yet understand fully what they do, then we set very distinct categories with no gray area. Would you raise children to let them do bad things then attempt to teach them the right thing in adulthood? That never works.

Besides I don’t think it’s fair to say that a culture can’t understand the idea of the golden rule (something that cultures both Christian and non-Christian know).

I have already explained this; the Hebrews would have considered absurd and inacceptable such teaching and they would have rejected Moses as their leader.

No, you are wrong; a law against slavery would have never been accepted; such a law would have caused the failure of Moses’ mission.

How do you know this? Doesn’t the Church now speak out against things that a sizable percent of the population sees as not wrong?

No, you are wrong; we live in a totally different society; you cannot compare our moral standards to the moral standards of ancient peoples. This is simply ridiculous.

Please read Exodus 21. It’s a single page. Imagine yourself not as the slaveowner, but as the one bought or born as a slave. Put yourself in their shoes and then tell me that this was moral. No, this was, is, and will always be immoral.

Certainly God teaches us what is is right and wrong; what I meant is that we remain free to choose whether obey or not.

So you agree with what I’ve been saying the whole time: God teaches us what;ss right and wrong. God told people how to enslave, how hitting someone with a rod so hard that she lingers in agony for a day before dying is not wrong (Ex 21:21).

Au contraire; some of the Hebrews rebelled against laws that were less inacceptable than a law against slavery for their culture.

I’m not sure if “less inacceptable” was intended to mean less or more acceptable, but it’s moot. This isn’t a moral quandary like stealing to feed your family or lying to protect the Jewish family hiding in your basement. No moral relativism outweighs the evil of slavery.

A law against slavery would have not been accepted by almost the totality of the Hebrews and therefore Moses would have been rejected as a leader.

How are you so confident as to reading the minds of so many Hebrews? Whether the people like it or not doesn’t matter Children don’t accept sharing or not hitting, but parents say NO until they are able to understand.

I see no relevance with the present issue.

It’s as plain as day. Your reasoning is that in some cases God will allow his people to do bad things that other nations do until they are mature enough morally. The 3 passages literally say they are NOT to do bad things other nations do.

 

[Mmarco]

Would you raise children to let them do bad things then attempt to teach them the right thing in adulthood? That never works.

Yes, I surely did and it works. When my children were only little babies, I allowed them to behave in a way that is absolutely inacceptable for an adult; and now that they are adults, they have absolutely abandoned these behaviors.
Have you any children? I have four children.

Besides, I have never taught my little chlidren that they must be ready to die for Christ, because this would have been too hard for them to understand. The same is true for many other theological issues.

Besides I don’t think it’s fair to say that a culture can’t understand the idea of the golden rule (something that cultures both Christian and non-Christian know).

That’s ridiculous; ancient peoples didn’t know the golden rule and they could have never understood it. On this point we can only agree to disagree.

So you agree with what I’ve been saying the whole time: God teaches us what;ss right and wrong. God told people how to enslave, how hitting someone with a rod so hard that she lingers in agony for a day before dying is not wrong (Ex 21:21).

No, what I meant is that God allowed such behaviors; Moses gave some rules because a ruled kind of slavery is better than a totally unruled kind of slavery. It is exactly the same as for the case of divorce; Moses gave rules for divorce even if divorce is contrary to God’s will.

Au contraire; some of the Hebrews rebelled against laws that were less inacceptable than a law against slavery for their culture.

I’m not sure if “less inacceptable” was intended to mean less or more acceptable, but it’s moot. This isn’t a moral quandary like stealing to feed your family or lying to protect the Jewish family hiding in your basement. No moral relativism outweighs the evil of slavery.

You missed my point; some Hebrews rebelled against precepts which were much more acceptable for their culture than a precept against slavery. Which makes my point; a comanment against slavery would have brought a mass uprising against Moses, causing the failure of Moses’ mission.

It’s as plain as day. Your reasoning is that in some cases God will allow his people to do bad things that other nations do until they are mature enough morally. The 3 passages literally say they are NOT to do bad things other nations do.

That verse does not say explicitly which bad things the Hebrews must not do; therefore , it is totally irrilevant to the present issue.

 

[goout]

goout:

Murder is immoral.
Being free is not immoral. It’s a state.
Committing murder to obtain freedom is immoral.

I guess those who were judges were commisioned by God to sin

Yes of course that must be it.

 

[goout]

Mmarco:

Again, I see no relevant points; there are no mutual exclusive concepts. God allowed certain practices because the Hebrews was not ready to accept the perfect moral laws because of the hardness of their heart. It is very simple; we are talking about ancient peoples, and slavery was considered logical in their underdevelopped cultures.

I’ll bring up the parenting analogy again. If someone doesn’t yet understand fully what they do, then we set very distinct categories with no gray area. Would you raise children to let them do bad things then attempt to teach them the right thing in adulthood? That never works.

The parenting analogy doesn’t begin to support your stance.
Parents set boundaries appropriate to the stage of development. Even so, children exceed the boundaries all the time, sometimes at the cost of their own harm and that of others.

The point of parenting is not to “lock the child in the room of fundamentalist domination” where determinism reigns, but rather to guide patiently with an eye toward developing a fully functional and freely acting moral person.

thank you for choosing that analogy.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Julius_Caesar:

goout:

Murder is immoral.
Being free is not immoral. It’s a state.
Committing murder to obtain freedom is immoral.

I guess those who were judges were commisioned by God to sin

Yes of course that must be it.

So you don’t deny it. Touché.

 

[AlNg]

Imagine yourself not as the slaveowner, but as the one bought or born as a slave. Put yourself in their shoes and then tell me that this was moral. No, this was, is, and will always be immoral.

That’s right. I don’t see how it was ever justified to take a young child and enslave her.

ancient peoples didn’t know the golden rule

How do you know that the Chinese did not know the golden rule?

 

[Mmarco]

Mmarco:

ancient peoples didn’t know the golden rule

How do you know that the Chinese did not know the golden rule?

There are many historical evidences proving that slavery existed in ancient China (actually it was legal until the XX century), so I can exclude that Chinese knew the golden rule.

Anyway, this is irrilevant to the topic, because I referred only to the peoples who had contact with the biblical Hebrews. I was talking about their culture.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

The parenting analogy doesn’t begin to support your stance.
Parents set boundaries appropriate to the stage of development.

I agree. Let’s actually look at those stages of development. At infancy you can tell a kid until your blue in the face to stop crying or not put something in their mouths and they won’t listen. They don’t understand what a command is and have no self-control or experiences to work from.

As they approach toddlerhood they start to get the idea that when mommy and daddy make that “NO” sound that they should listen.

It’s a gradual process. We’ve all been there when mommy tells kid “No, don’t eat that cookie,” and the kid looks at her, pauses, gives a big smile, then eats the cookie.

Part of the process is not only repeating it, but also understanding that it’s not going to click in the child right away. Most importantly, parents know that sometimes they will have to physically act to reinforce that it’s important to do what is told. That means taking away the cookie if needed, putting the toy back in the toy box or lifting the kid for bathtime. At this stage, the kids don’t understand repercussions, yet they do eventually understand words and tone of voice that means it’s listening time.

The next stage, where the kid can express themselves verbally. Let’s say the kid grabs a toy out of another kid’s hands. A good parent will quickly intercede. At first that might be via calling the kid’s name to get his/her attention then telling the kid to give back the toy. Grown-ups understand that like so many things the kid won’t get it at first. It’s these kinds of situations where a very limited bit of reasoning an empathy are introduced. The parent may try talking to kid about sharing and asking. The parent may present another toy for the child to show there’s no need to take the other child’s toy. If it comes to it the parent may have to take away the toy and give it back to the other child, then ask their kid to think about how it feels to have something just taken away. One final step might be to pull the kid aside so that he can’t play until he calms down. The kid will not grasp it in one shot or be fully understanding of the wants and needs of others, but it does do one very important thing: It sets a negative connotation in the kid’s mind with relation to a particular act. As children often they learn what is right and wrong before they fully understand why something is right or wrong. The LAST thing a parent should be doing in that situation is either telling a child that doing this is right or give instruction on how best to take another child’s toy.

As the kid progresses he or she is going to gain understanding bit by bit. They not only can think abstractly but be able to put others on par with themselves. But it all stems from the diligence of the parents. They learn the basics of morality and they go from simple obeying to having a real sense of morals. It’s then when the child grows as a person they can use their morals when they encounter an unfamiliar situation. First, what led to why; and now why leads to what.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Let’s put this all together into one specific example: Teaching kids not to hit others. If a baby hits another person, the baby can’t be told to stop because they can’t be reasoned with.
If a child who is not yet able to communicate but knows to listen hits another person, the parents will try to teach it not to (maybe lightly holding its hands and saying no); but we no they can’t be reasoned with yet.
In the next stage if a child hits a person they are more sternly told to stop. The parent will try to get them to understand they wouldn’t like it. It might require giving the kid a time out or other punishment to let it sink in.
As the child gets older more nuance may be added talking about self-defense or the defense of others.
But at NO POINT is a good parent ever going to allow their kid to hit others or worse tell them how to pick on others (a la God and slavery).

Even so, children exceed the boundaries all the time, sometimes at the cost of their own harm and that of others.

Yes, but grown-ups are to push back especially when it involves the harm of others.

The point of parenting is not to “lock the child in the room of fundamentalist domination” where determinism reigns, but rather to guide patiently with an eye toward developing a fully functional and freely acting moral person.

Teaching kids that wrong is wrong at the start before they can fully understand isn’t “fundamentalist domination” or “determinism” (I don’t where your quotes came from, because I never said any of that.) Instead it’s laying the groundwork so that after learning what is wrong to explain why it’s wrong. That’s how you raise a moral person. Saying that something that is wrong is perfectly right (as God does with slavery) then later trying to shift gears and saying it’s wrong only makes it harder to instill morality.

I’ve given a few specific examples here. Name something specific that parents are to teach their kids is perfectly right then later teach is morally wrong.

thank you for choosing that analogy.

You’re welcome. I hope I’ve made the idea of how to teach morality clearer for you.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Yes, I surely did and it works. When my children were only little babies, I allowed them to behave in a way that is absolutely inacceptable for an adult; and now that they are adults, they have absolutely abandoned these behaviors.

I’m not talking about being loud or gross as children are wont to do, but actual moral issues. What specifically immoral thing have you allowed your children do at a stage where they understand to listen to their parents, and then later told them was not moral?

Have you any children? I have four children.

No children for me, but I am an uncle 9 times over. In fact, I’m the world’s greatest uncle (and I have the mug to prove it! )

Besides, I have never taught my little chlidren that they must be ready to die for Christ, because this would have been too hard for them to understand. The same is true for many other theological issues.

Right, you understand that teach morality is a progressive thing.

That’s ridiculous; ancient peoples didn’t know the golden rule and they could have never understood it. On this point we can only agree to disagree.

Do you think the Golden Rule started with Christianity? Every culture comes up with some form of it or another. Societies are built on the idea of “I don’t want to get hurt” and “You don’t want to get hurt”, so let’s work together.
Click here for a simple rundown.

No, what I meant is that God allowed such behaviors; Moses gave some rules

No, God gave the rules

because a ruled kind of slavery is better than a totally unruled kind of slavery.

1. How is this not moral relativism?
2. How come God could not put his foot down on slavery the same he put his foot down on working the Sabbath?
3. Apart from male Hebrew slaves (who could still be beaten, killed, and blackmailed into choosing between freedom and family) how is the slavery in the Bible better than other slavery?

It is exactly the same as for the case of divorce; Moses gave rules for divorce even if divorce is contrary to God’s will.

It’s not applicable because God was the one who gave the rules for slavery – in great detail – and not Moses.

You missed my point; some Hebrews rebelled against precepts which were much more acceptable for their culture than a precept against slavery. Which makes my point; a comanment against slavery would have brought a mass uprising against Moses, causing the failure of Moses’ mission.

You know this how? What evidence can you present to back that up?

If you read Exodus, God gave the Hebrew people a whole list of rules to follow that some didn’t like. Those that didn’t tended to either follow God or die.

That verse does not say explicitly which bad things the Hebrews must not do; therefore , it is totally irrilevant to the present issue.

If you read the chapters in some cases it does, but the point is that doing anything just because other nations are doing it doesn’t fly.

 

[Isearch]

There are many historical evidences proving that slavery existed in ancient China (actually it was legal until the XX century), so I can exclude that Chinese knew the golden rule.

Confucianism has both negative and positive formulations of the Golden Rule itself. So this statement is just plainly false.

 

[OddBird]

I can exclude that Chinese knew the golden rule.

Not quite

“Do not impose upon others what you do not wish for yourself”
Confucius, Analects

 

[Mmarco]

because a ruled kind of slavery is better than a totally unruled kind of slavery.

1. How is this not moral relativism?

This is not moral relativism; it is simply elementary logics. I think that anarchy is worst than monarchy, even if I think that monarchy is not the correct form of government.

1. How come God could not put his foot down on slavery the same he put his foot down on working the Sabbath?

Because God has always known that Christianity would have had to spread among pagan societies (Romans, for example) who practised slavery. If the Hebrews would have rejected explicitly slavery, also christians would have rejected explicitly slavery, and therefore, christians would have found a much stronger opposition and the diffusion of christianity through the roman empire would have been impossible.

It is exactly the same as for the case of divorce; Moses gave rules for divorce even if divorce is contrary to God’s will.

It’s not applicable because God was the one who gave the rules for slavery – in great detail – and not Moses.

I totally disagree; in fact Moses was a prophet, and God could have prevented him from giving rules about divorce. Therefore, also Moses’ rules were given because God allowed Moses to give them. Besides, your idea that the rules for slavery were given directly by God and not by Moses is due to a personal interpretation of yours; I don’t think that God dictated to Moses the rules about slavery.
I stand on my point: the case of slavery is exactly the same as the case of divorce; Moses gave rules for divorce and slavery even if divorce and slavery are contrary to God’s will. A totally unruled divorce ( as well as a totally unruled slavery) is worst than a ruled divorce (ruled slavery).

If you read the chapters in some cases it does, but the point is that doing anything just because other nations are doing it doesn’t fly.

This is totally irrilevant; the point is that ancient peoples did not conceive the right of freedom according to our democratic standards. This has nothing to do with “doing something just because other nations are doing it”. You are using our modern democratic standards to judge ancient peoples, which is simply absurd.

 

[Mmarco]

Mmarco:

There are many historical evidences proving that slavery existed in ancient China (actually it was legal until the XX century), so I can exclude that Chinese knew the golden rule.

Confucianism has both negative and positive formulations of the Golden Rule itself. So this statement is just plainly false.

Nevertheless, slavery was legal in China until the XX century, which proves that the rule by itself, is not sufficient to change society.

 

[Mmarco]

Mmarco:

2000 years ago, slavery was permitted by the law;

In my personal opinion that was an unjust law. Today abortion is permitted by the American law. IOW, the American law permits a mother to murder her unborn child. Just because the law permits it, does not make it right, at least that would be my personal opinion.

Of course it was an unjust law; we all agree that slavery is immoral. The point is that ancient peoples were not ready to accept our modern democratic principles.

 

[Dan_Defender]

St Paul did not preach freeing slaves. One must remember that at the time of St Paul, the whole economy of the Mediterranean was built on slavery. So freeing a slave was not necessarily doing him a favor. A free laborer would have a hard time competing with slave labor, and could be worse off, not having the security of daily food.

 

[Mmarco]

Apart from male Hebrew slaves (who could still be beaten, killed, and blackmailed into choosing between freedom and family) how is the slavery in the Bible better than other slavery?

Some examples showing that the ruled slavery of the Bible was better than a totally unruled slavery .

Exodus 21:16 forbid to kidnap a free man and make him become a slave.

Hebrew slaves were people who had stolen something or who had contracted a debt which they were unable to pay back; in other cases, they were very poor people who chose to sell themselves because unable to support themselves and their family.

For an Hebrew slave, slavery lasted 7 years and it was not a permanent condition. Exodus 21:2

All slaves must rest on the Sabbath like all free Hebrews. (Deut 5:14) ( this was true both for a Hebrew slave ans a pagan slave)

Exodus 21:20 forbids to kill a slave.( this was true both for a Hebrew slave and a pagan slave)

If the master hit a slave and he caused him a permanent injury (even only the breaking of a tooth), the slave must have been set free. Exodus 21: 26-27 ( this was true both for a Hebrew slave and a pagan slave)

Leviticus 25:39-42 says that, when an Hebrew sells himself to another Hebrew, the master must not consider him as a slave but as a hired worker and he must not rule over him ruthlessly.

For pagan slaves we can apply:

Exodus 22:21 Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreignersin Egypt

and Deut 10:19 And you are to love those who are foreigners, for you yourselves were foreigners in Egypt.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

This is not moral relativism; it is simply elementary logics. I think that anarchy is worst than monarchy, even if I think that monarchy is not the correct form of government.

But these are not the only two possibilities. If God said there was to be no slavery, perhaps they would have accepted it. Maybe they’d have revolted, but that doesn’t mean it would necessarily be anarchy. Anarchy rarely lasts long and a power vacuum will put a social structure in place. It’s also possible some of the Hebrews would have agreed to no slavery and some would have left (like when God said people had to eat his flesh).

I earlier asked for evidence that if God said no to slavery that there would have been anarchy. Perhaps you could provide some now.

And God put all sorts of restrictions on his people. Wandering the desert for 40 years, being restricted in what they could eat and wear, having to commit all those ritual sacrifices - none of them were dealbreakers for these people, but you’re absolutely sure that a practice they hadn’t done in 430 years was.

Because God has always known that Christianity would have had to spread among pagan societies (Romans, for example) who practised slavery. If the Hebrews would have rejected explicitly slavery, also christians would have rejected explicitly slavery, and therefore, christians would have found a much stronger opposition and the diffusion of christianity through the roman empire would have been impossible.

Again you need to take what you say to the logical conclusion: Christianity/Judaism could not denounce X, because it had to spread to societies that practiced X. The problem with that is Christianity/Judaism denounced many things that other societies practiced. X seems to be ONLY slavery in your algorithm.

Besides, your idea that the rules for slavery were given directly by God and not by Moses is due to a personal interpretation of yours; I don’t think that God dictated to Moses the rules about slavery.

Trust this atheist: In Exodus 20 God speaks The Ten Commandments. The people are afraid and Moses steps forward and continues listening to what God says. Exodus 20:22 starts with “Then the LORD said to Moses,”. From that until Exodus 24:1 is one quote from God (as we it capitalizes My throughout) Exodus 24:1 is just a brief pause to say “Then the LORD said to Moses…” Exodus 24:3 says that Moses told all the people what God said, and they said they’d do what the LORD told them to do. Exodus 24:4 ends it with “And Moses wrote down all the words of the LORD.”

This is totally irrilevant; the point is that ancient peoples did not conceive the right of freedom according to our democratic standards. This has nothing to do with “doing something just because other nations are doing it”. You are using our modern democratic standards to judge ancient peoples, which is simply absurd.

God says don’t do these things that other nations do. You’re saying the Hebrews had to do them because everyone else was doing them. You’re choosing peer pressure over a God that shaped the Hebrew culture and its rules.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Some examples showing that the ruled slavery of the Bible was better than a totally unruled slavery .

I’m curious if you feel the slavery in the Americas in the 17th and 18th centuries. You may find some disturbing similariies.

Exodus 21:16 forbid to kidnap a free man and make him become a slave.

This is also true of the so-called chattel slavery.

Hebrew slaves were people who had stolen something or who had contracted a debt which they were unable to pay back; in other cases, they were very poor people who chose to sell themselves because unable to support themselves and their family.

Again this is a false dichotomy. There are ways to pay a debt or make restitution without becoming a slave. An all-knowing God would know many such ways. An all-loving God would not offer only slavery as a solution.

For an Hebrew slave, slavery lasted 7 years and it was not a permanent condition. Exodus 21:2

Except you left out the part where if the male Hebrew slave obtained a family while a slave he would have to make a choice at the end of his term: Leave behind his family forever or be blackmailed into staying with the slaveowner forever. How is withholding a family from a man fairly paying back or debt or making restitution? How is this good or moral in ANY way?

All slaves must rest on the Sabbath like all free Hebrews. (Deut 5:14) ( this was true both for a Hebrew slave ans a pagan slave)

I’m going to keep the language clean and appropriate. Do you remember the story of Arial Castro, the man who held captive several young women? Imagine if once a week he didn’t do a certain immoral thing to them, would we be citing him as better than someone who did said thing all seven days of the week? A day off from brutality is still brutality.

Also let me introduce you to the South Carolina Slave Code. So-called chattel slavery had some very baseline regulations that slaveowners had to follow. One of those was limiting the number of hours a slave could work per day. This is not in ANY WAY to celebrate the actions done then, but only to show that Biblical slavery isn’t that much different than American slavery.