Original Sin

[PendingTheist]

1. Could be. God tests many. (Frankly, it seems like you’re failing…)

2a. If there was objective morality apart from God, then you would have the authority to say His actions are immoral. But since there is not, you can only critique Him based on subjective morality, which only applies to those who accept it. Yes, your second premise is somewhat true, but you commit an argumentum ad absurdum fallacy by essentially saying, “What God did is wrong according to my subjective moral values, therefore it is wrong.” You would be laughed out of any Philosophy class for saying that.

2b. Notice that those actions are only permissible with Divine command. Also, you misunderstand the term “objective morality”. Objective morality means that, independent of a consensus of the world’s cultures (which certainly doesn’t exist) and the judgement of a human’s limbic system, something can be classified as moral or immoral.

3a. Yes, most Christians (I don’t want to generalize) and all Catholics who follow Church teaching would agree that slavery is morally wrong. (I think it is interesting to note that the Church condemned the African slave trade at its very beginning, in the papal bull Sicut Dudum, issued in 1435). Did you read my previous post? I referred you to the New Testament Epistle to Philemon, the entire subject of which is the condemnation of slavery. Go ahead, dig up your dusty old Bible- it’s all there.
As I said, in OT times, slavery was necessary to sustain the primitive economic system. When it ceased to be, i.e in NT times, St Paul abolished it under the inspiration of God.

3b. It would have been close to impossible for a Jew of Jesus’s time to know, or even care, what Buddhism or Confucianism say. Thus, the saying was an invention of Jesus.

3c. “use their own moral compass…” -PendingTheist
Aha! I’ve caught you in the act! Who’s to decide which personal moral compass is right? Exactly. You can’t do that unless you have a higher power. You can’t expect others to come to the same moral conclusions as you have.

1. I can say you are failing all the other non-Christians gods.

2a. We decide what is right and wrong through our own ethical intuitions and others we are in conversations with and to say we need a higher supernatural power with evidential biblical immorality is an insult to our dignity as a human race.

3a. Im glad you agree you are more moral than god on slavery. If slavery was necessary for a primitive economic system what was the point in letting the owner off free of punishment if the slave died after a day or two? How was punishing the slave necessary for this system and why didn’t God abolish it himself instead of Paul or create a more civilized system where God says, a human may own a human to pay a debt but the servant is not to be beaten, killed, raped or passed on to future generations. Jesus could have done something instead of saying “The servant will be severely beaten, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be beaten only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given.” (Luke 12:47-48 NLT). There are other verses indicating Slavery was active in the NT. “Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.” (Ephesians 6:5 NLT).
Titus 2:9: “Slaves are to be subject to their own masters in everything, to do what is wanted and not talk back, not pilfering, but showing all good faith, in order to bring credit to the teaching of God our Savior in everything.”
"Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them.” (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT).

3b. So you saying its possible just like its possible Peter wrote Peter. its debated that Peter was a forgery as Peter was an illiterate Aramaic fisherman along with 97% of his culture. So how can he be familiar with the Old Testament Septuagint Greek translation and write or dictate to a scribe in elegant Greek? I guess it’s possible John-Mark (the apparent writer of Mark) or a well-educated Aramaic scribe read and translated the Old Testament from Greek to Aramaic then Peter dictated his Aramaic thoughts which were translated into highly literate Greek or he was given the ability to understand and speak in other tongues through the power of the Holy Spirit. Seems like a stretch but not impossible.
3c. See 2a

 

[JamesTheJust]

1. I can say you are failing all the other non-Christians gods.

2a. We decide what is right and wrong through our own ethical intuitions and others we are in conversations with and to say we need a higher supernatural power with evidential biblical immorality is an insult to our dignity as a human race.

3a. Im glad you agree you are more moral than god on slavery. If slavery was necessary for a primitive economic system what was the point in letting the owner off free of punishment if the slave died after a day or two? How was punishing the slave necessary for this system and why didn’t God abolish it himself instead of Paul or create a more civilized system where God says, a human may own a human to pay a debt but the servant is not to be beaten, killed, raped or passed on to future generations. Jesus could have done something instead of saying “The servant will be severely beaten, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be beaten only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given.” (Luke 12:47-48 NLT). There are other verses indicating Slavery was active in the NT. “Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.” (Ephesians 6:5 NLT).
Titus 2:9: “Slaves are to be subject to their own masters in everything, to do what is wanted and not talk back, not pilfering, but showing all good faith, in order to bring credit to the teaching of God our Savior in everything.”
"Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them.” (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT).

3b. So you saying its possible just like its possible Peter wrote Peter. its debated that Peter was a forgery as Peter was an illiterate Aramaic fisherman along with 97% of his culture. So how can he be familiar with the Old Testament Septuagint Greek translation and write or dictate to a scribe in elegant Greek? I guess it’s possible John-Mark (the apparent writer of Mark) or a well-educated Aramaic scribe read and translated the Old Testament from Greek to Aramaic then Peter dictated his Aramaic thoughts which were translated into highly literate Greek or he was given the ability to understand and speak in other tongues through the power of the Holy Spirit. Seems like a stretch but not impossible.
3c. See 2a

1. But I’m not being tested in my faith. In fact, my faith is stronger than ever.

2a. Ok, sure, completely ignore my refutations of your arguments and reiterate your point, because that’s logical.

3a. But the owner wouldn’t be free of punishment, because he would lose an extremely valuable economic asset that he couldn’t buy back (slaves were not sold in ancient times as in the African slave trade, they were owned by family. If a slave was to die, you’d lose all the future generations he could have sired and be left pretty much broke).

Paul abolished it under inspiration of God (another part of my post you seem to have ignored), and God never allowed the slave to be raped, only killed if entirely by accident during punishment.

You might want to note that the NLT is an awful translation, but I’ll refute your arguments nonetheless:
Luke 12:47-48 is part of a larger passage (a thing called context), which is a parable. It is describing punishment after death.
The other passages NOWHERE condone slavery. They simply say that, if one is a slave, one should not resist one’s master, keeping a humble, accepting, and generally Christian attitude. Haven’t you heard, “turn the other cheek”?

3b. Here’s an article that masterfully defends the traditional authorship of the Petrine epistles:
newadvent.org/cathen/11752a.htm
And no, as I said in my post, Jesus, or any other Palestinian Jew of that era, would have had virtually no way to obtain a copy of Buddhist holy writings. It’s more likely that Jesus was reinforcing the teaching of Tobit 4:15-
And what you hate, do not do to anyone. Do not drink wine to excess or let drunkenness go with you on your way.

 

[JamesTheJust]

3b. So you saying its possible just like its possible Peter wrote Peter. its debated that Peter was a forgery as Peter was an illiterate Aramaic fisherman along with 97% of his culture. So how can he be familiar with the Old Testament Septuagint Greek translation and write or dictate to a scribe in elegant Greek? I guess it’s possible John-Mark (the apparent writer of Mark) or a well-educated Aramaic scribe read and translated the Old Testament from Greek to Aramaic then Peter dictated his Aramaic thoughts which were translated into highly literate Greek or he was given the ability to understand and speak in other tongues through the power of the Holy Spirit. Seems like a stretch but not impossible.

Another good resource on the authenticity of the first Petrine epistle:
catholic.com/blog/jimmy-akin/who-wrote-1-peter

 

[PendingTheist]

1. But I’m not being tested in my faith. In fact, my faith is stronger than ever.

2a. Ok, sure, completely ignore my refutations of your arguments and reiterate your point, because that’s logical.

3a. But the owner wouldn’t be free of punishment, because he would lose an extremely valuable economic asset that he couldn’t buy back (slaves were not sold in ancient times as in the African slave trade, they were owned by family. If a slave was to die, you’d lose all the future generations he could have sired and be left pretty much broke).

Paul abolished it under inspiration of God (another part of my post you seem to have ignored), and God never allowed the slave to be raped, only killed if entirely by accident during punishment.

You might want to note that the NLT is an awful translation, but I’ll refute your arguments nonetheless:
Luke 12:47-48 is part of a larger passage (a thing called context), which is a parable. It is describing punishment after death.
The other passages NOWHERE condone slavery. They simply say that, if one is a slave, one should not resist one’s master, keeping a humble, accepting, and generally Christian attitude. Haven’t you heard, “turn the other cheek”?

3b. Here’s an article that masterfully defends the traditional authorship of the Petrine epistles:
newadvent.org/cathen/11752a.htm
And no, as I said in my post, Jesus, or any other Palestinian Jew of that era, would have had virtually no way to obtain a copy of Buddhist holy writings. It’s more likely that Jesus was reinforcing the teaching of Tobit 4:15-
And what you hate, do not do to anyone. Do not drink wine to excess or let drunkenness go with you on your way.

3a. If they weren’t sold, what does “buy” mean in this verse? “‘As for your male and female slaves who may belong to you – you may BUY male and female slaves from the nations all around you. Also you may BUY slaves from the children of the foreigners who reside with you, and from their families that are with you, whom they have fathered in your land, they may become your property. You may give them as inheritance to your children after you to possess as property. You may enslave them perpetually. However, as for your brothers the Israelites, no man may rule over his brother harshly.
“If you BUY a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. Exodus 21-2
When a man SELLS his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be BOUGHT back again. But he is not allowed to SELL her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract (violated her virginity?) with her…” (Exodus 21:7-10)

 

[JamesTheJust]

3a. If they weren’t sold, what does “buy” mean in this verse? “‘As for your male and female slaves who may belong to you – you may BUY male and female slaves from the nations all around you. Also you may BUY slaves from the children of the foreigners who reside with you, and from their families that are with you, whom they have fathered in your land, they may become your property. You may give them as inheritance to your children after you to possess as property. You may enslave them perpetually. However, as for your brothers the Israelites, no man may rule over his brother harshly.
“If you BUY a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. Exodus 21-2
When a man SELLS his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be BOUGHT back again. But he is not allowed to SELL her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract (violated her virginity?) with her…” (Exodus 21:7-10)

I meant that they weren’t conquered en masse and forced into slavery like the African slave trade. Obviously, you could make small deals with neighbors and foreigners.

Also, note that Exodus 21:7 does not say that violating a slave’s virginity is permissible. In fact, it imposes an economic penalty on the one who performs the rape.

My argument doesn’t even come close to hinging on this point, so it beats me why you’d single out this part to contend.

 

[JamesTheJust]

3a. If they weren’t sold, what does “buy” mean in this verse? “‘As for your male and female slaves who may belong to you – you may BUY male and female slaves from the nations all around you. Also you may BUY slaves from the children of the foreigners who reside with you, and from their families that are with you, whom they have fathered in your land, they may become your property. You may give them as inheritance to your children after you to possess as property. You may enslave them perpetually. However, as for your brothers the Israelites, no man may rule over his brother harshly.
“If you BUY a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. Exodus 21-2
When a man SELLS his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be BOUGHT back again. But he is not allowed to SELL her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract (violated her virginity?) with her…” (Exodus 21:7-10)

Resources refuting the notion that Christianity, the Church, or the Bible support slavery:
newadvent.org/cathen/14036a.htm
catholicnewsagency.com/resources/apologetics/controversies/slavery-and-the-catholic-church/
conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2008/05/17/the-bible-and-slavery/

Also see this resource hub:
socrates58.blogspot.com/2011/02/bible-church-history-and-slavery-huge.html?m=1

Slavery was part of the culture and economic fabric of Biblical times.

Nowhere does the Bible say that slavery is a good thing. It was merely tolerated by Biblical writers.

When St. Paul said that Christians slaves were God’s free men, and Christian slave owners were really God’s slaves and brothers to their Christian slaves, this was revolutionary to people who had been used to thinking of slaves as non-human things.

 

[JamesTheJust]

From an excellent article on the subject:

The Bible does not specifically condemn the practice of slavery. It gives instructions on how slaves should be treated (Deuteronomy 15:12-15; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1), but does not outlaw slavery altogether. Many see this as the Bible condoning all forms of slavery. What many fail to understand is that slavery in biblical times was very different from the slavery that was practiced in the past few centuries in many parts of the world. The slavery in the Bible was not based exclusively on race. People were not enslaved because of their nationality or the color of their skin. In Bible times, slavery was more a matter of social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their families. In New Testament times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, and even politicians were slaves of someone else. Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their masters.

The slavery of the past few centuries was often based exclusively on skin color. In the United States, many black people were considered slaves because of their nationality; many slave owners truly believed black people to be inferior human beings. The Bible most definitely does condemn race-based slavery. Consider the slavery the Hebrews experienced when they were in Egypt. The Hebrews were slaves, not by choice, but because they were Hebrews (Exodus 13:14). The plagues God poured out on Egypt demonstrate how God feels about racial slavery (Exodus 7-11). So, yes, the Bible does condemn some forms of slavery. At the same time, the Bible does seem to allow for other forms. The key issue is that the slavery the Bible allowed for in no way resembled the racial slavery that plagued our world in the past few centuries.

In addition, both the Old and New Testaments condemn the practice of “man-stealing” which is what happened in Africa in the 19th century. Africans were rounded up by slave-hunters, who sold them to slave-traders, who brought them to the New World to work on plantations and farms. This practice is abhorrent to God. In fact, the penalty for such a crime in the Mosaic Law was death: “Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death” (Exodus 21:16). Similarly, in the New Testament, slave-traders are listed among those who are “ungodly and sinful” and are in the same category as those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers, adulterers and perverts, and liars and perjurers (1 Timothy 1:8-10).