Slavery, Child Murder, Etc

[ServantofChristos]

I’m currently taking a Philosophy 101 class. Today we were on the topic of Ethics and Religion, my teacher began to read several verses from the Old and New Testament about slavery and said Christians pick and choose what to believe in since no one (in the right mind) would support slavery. He also talked about a law in the Old Testament that says to stone a child that dishonors their parents and killing a woman who wasn’t a virgin when they were married. I know religion would be discussed in a philosophy class and i’m okay with that, but I didn’t know how I could answer these claims.
Any help would be appreciated.

 

[pianistclare]

He does know that Christianity didn’t begin until the NEW Testament right?

That the books of the Bible (it’s not one big book) were written over centuries upon centuries, and describe ancient people, ancient cultures, and practices that we have not seen in the modern world.
Sounds like he needs a History lesson.

Pick and choose indeed.
Ask him why he “picked” those things to speak about.

The 10 Commandments is where we get our ethics.

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

@pianistclare is correct. The OT is not what commands Christians. Like Clare illuded to, we believe the 10 commandments…those are not in the NT but we believe them through Jesus’ command regarding the 2 great commandments. Jesus also gives us the Beatitude.

It sounds like your professor is trying to be cool and controversial when really, he is showing great ignorance.

Jesus challenged the cultural punishments and He reinforced that those who owned slaves were to treat them as brothers.

 

[Crocus]

my teacher … said Christians pick and choose what to believe in

I find that an unfortunate generalization.

… since no one (in the right mind) would support slavery.

What constitutes slavery anyway? What did it look like in past times, what does it look like today?

What did social structures (relations) look like then, and now?

Our little niece, after getting what she considered a bad haircut from my sister, rolled her eyes and demanded: “Can I see your licence, please!?” I’m wondering somewhat the same about the credentials of your philosophy professor. (Too much agenda.)

Oh, and Jesus came to not to abolish the Law of Moses, but to fulfill and perfect it. Individuals have, and will always come short of the law, even when they believe it to be true.

 

[joeybaggz]

And if your “professor” is equating the slavey of 18th and 19th century America with the slavery that was extant in the times of the OT, he is equating ducks with polar bears. In OT times, “slaves” were indentured servants, usually to pay off a debt, and were to be freed after a specific period of time. A whole lot different that 1835 Mississippi.

 

[superblue]

Servant, you got a lot to consider first, is the instution you are studying at Christian based, far-left or right, conservative or not, and or what are the instructors personal views of ethics and religion, and can the instructor be unbiased in such topics.

Then you have to remember that reading anything, be it the Bible, or a historical book, even fiction, context is key, but in regards to the Bible, A lot of information is left out by authors or information has been lost, and the debate about the accuracy of events in the Old Testament will always circulate. If the instructor wants to only read scripture from one point of view then it becomes like reading a book or reading information in a dimly lit room with one eye closed and standing far away from the information.

 

[Crocus]

@superblue

Servant, you got a lot to consider first, is the instution you are studying at Christian based, far-left or right, conservative or not, and or what are the instructors personal views of ethics and religion, and can the instructor be unbiased in such topics.

I would expect a study of philosophy to function independantly, regardless of any religious, political or social connections the institution might have. The professor in this case seems more interested in giving answers than asking thoughtful questions … unless this is just the opening and fruitful discussion follows.

 

[superblue]

oh cool Crocus you and Servant are in the same class together so you can help servant figure this out.

 

[BornInMarch]

That’s not true. As Christians we believe that the whole bible is important: that’s why the hebrew bible is included in it. Likewise Jesus said himself that he was not overturning the old testament.

We can’t just take what we like from the Old Testament and dismiss the rest as not mattering. We need to address this seriously.

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

That’s not true. As Christians we believe that the whole bible is important: that’s why the hebrew bible is included in it. Likewise Jesus said himself that he was not overturning the old testament.

We can’t just take what we like from the Old Testament and dismiss the rest as not mattering. We need to address this seriously.

I think you missed the point. Just because Christianity is rooted in the OT does not make those in the OT Christians. A majority of the OT speaks of Judaism or Paganism. No Christians could be found until the NT around 30AD when Jesus begins public ministry–with perhaps the exception of Joseph, Mary and a few other Biblical persons (John, Elizabeth, etc) mentioned by name.

It’s not about outright dismissing the OT but dismissing the idea that the Christians carry any burdan of the societal rights and the wrongs held within.

 

[De_Maria]

I know religion would be discussed in a philosophy class and i’m okay with that, but I didn’t know how I could answer these claims.
Any help would be appreciated.

Ok, let’s see.

I’m currently taking a Philosophy 101 class. Today we were on the topic of Ethics and Religion, my teacher began to read several verses from the Old and New Testament about slavery and said Christians pick and choose what to believe in since no one (in the right mind) would support slavery.

1. He is being anachronistic. In ancient days, slavery was part of the culture. It was as ordinary as getting up and going to work in an office building today.
2. In fact, it was the way that many people had gainful employment. Some people sold themselves into slavery in order to ensure that their families had something to eat.
3. Some people were enslaved to pay for their debts.
4. Some people were enslaved as punishment for crimes.
5. Some people were enslaved as a result of losing a war.

Today, #4 and 5 are not called slavery, they are called imprisonment.

The kind of slavery which the Catholic Church has always opposed is the kidnapping of innocent victims and forcing them to do things against their will.

He also talked about a law in the Old Testament that says to stone a child that dishonors their parents and killing a woman who wasn’t a virgin when they were married.

1. Those ordinances were annulled by Jesus Christ.
2. Catholics are not people of the Book. We are people of the Word of God which is primarily passed down by the Catholic Church. There are many things in the Old Testament which we no longer observe because we follow a living authority. A very simple example is the fact that we no longer observe the Sabbath on Saturday. We observe it on Sunday.

Christians pick and choose what to believe

In a certain sense, that is true. God commands us to pick that which is good and virtuous and hold on to it.

Philippians 4:8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.

Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. 24 And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. 25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.

 

[midori]

Your professor hopefully understands that the Bible is a compilation of a bunch of different types of writing. Some of it is history. Some of it is law. Some of it is allegory. Some of it is poetry. Some of it is correspondence. And so on and so forth. Different types of writing are read in different ways-- you don’t read poetry in the same way you read law, for example-- but that’s a different conversation.

The point being, part of the Bible is Jewish law, and part of it is moral law. We keep the moral law-- “Love God”/“Don’t bear false witness”/“Don’t covet”/“Don’t commit adultery”/“Honor your parents”/etc-- and we discard the cultural law-- “don’t mix fibers”/“don’t eat shellfish”/“if a brother dies, the next brother needs to marry his brother’s widow to give her children in his dead brother’s name”/etc.

Why does your teacher think slavery disappeared, for example? In all the surviving writings that we have left over from ancient Classical sources— Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Germanic, Indus Valley, Chinese, Babylonian, Assyrian, whatever— point to one scrap of writing that has a slave daydreaming about a mythical land of freedom, where all men are equal and slavery is nonexistent. Or perhaps a piece of writing that has someone who was born free, and sinks into slavery through misfortune, and the guy says, “I would rather die than descend into slavery!” The point is, that slavery was taken for granted as a normal part of life by the pagan world, and it wasn’t until you get Christianity, with its radical concept of “we are all children of God” and “love your neighbor as yourself” that people start getting uncomfortable with enslaving their fellows. And after Christianity gets this foothold into people’s consciousness, that’s when it starts to unravel, because until then, it’s just a natural part of economics.

 

[midori]

So, for example, you have Paul’s Epistle to Philemon. What was the whole point of this Epistle? Onesimus is a slave, who ran away and possibly stole money from Philemon on the way out. Does Paul keep Onesimus, and go, “Yay, freedom! Stick with me, Onesimus! Be free in Christ!” No. Instead, he writes a letter for Onesimus to take back to Philemon. And does he throw his weight around, knowing that Philemon is a leader in the Colossian church? “Philemon! I’m going to tell you what to do, and you better listen to me, because this is PAUL talking, and Onesimus told me how terribly you treated him, so you better reform!” No. He calls himself “a prisoner for Jesus Christ” and calls Philemon “a fellow laborer” and “brother”, and he asks him to receive Onesimus back as a “brother beloved” and if Onesimus owes anything, to please charge the debt to Paul.

Slavery is the norm for the time and the culture, but Paul never says “slavery is good” or “slavery is bad”. He just knows that slavery is a very human thing, and a very temporal thing. And Paul was all about discarding the temporal in favor of the eternal. The legal relationship between Philemon and Onesimus wasn’t important: what was important were the state of their souls. Onesimus should not rob Philemon of something that was rightfully his, and should work in humility, obedience, and grace. Philemon, on his part, should not be vengeful-- because an escaped slave could often expect death upon capture-- but should cultivate forgiveness, reconciliation, and even friendship and familial love. The two should not be divided, regardless of their relative legal/social/economic positions, but should be united in Christ.

So the thing about Christianity is that you exist within the civil structures of your culture, but you try to live as a citizen of heaven. And in the process, society gets transformed, once you have enough people doing that. But the point isn’t to transform society into a specific political animal that looks a certain way, or to force other people to do and say as you do. The point is to recognize that the details of your existence on earth are very, very, very brief, compared to your eternity, and so whether you passed your days as a king or as a slave doesn’t matter-- because merely being a king or a slave won’t guarantee you heaven.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

To say that Christians should ignore those passages in the OT that are difficult is to ignore Matthew 5:17 when Jesus said that he came not to change the law.

To say that God approving of slavery because slavery was everywhere at the time ignores not only Leviticus 20:23 “You must not live according to the customs of the nations I am going to drive out before you. Because they did all these things, I abhorred them.” but also all of the passages where God specifically told his people to either do or not do things other nations were or were not doing.

Don’t let anyone whitewash or hand wave the violence in the passages your teacher quoted.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

The Bible needs absolutely no whitewashing or hand waving.

If a person were to be transported back in time to the OT days, he would not wind up in Mr. Rogers Neighborhood. He would wind up in a time where life was nasty, brutish and short. Where the strong made every rule, and power was concentrated in the hands of a very few. Where a concept of a personal holiness didn’t exist in a way we would recognize. Where intense tribalism and vendetta ruled the day.

Every major culture at that time affirmed the right of the paterfamilias over the life and death of wife and children. For any or sometimes no reason. The sick babies, the feebleminded, the elderly were discarded (or strongly urged to do away with themselves). Where human sacrifice was an accepted practice.

The OT doesn’t allow for any of this.

Does the OT allow for the execution of disobedient children? Yup. But let’s take a look at that…
In those days, disobedience didn’t mean, “hey Junior, empty the dishwasher!”, “no, dad, I don’t want to”.
In those days, when mere survival was a sunup-to-sundown constant round of work, and the cooperation of every pair of hands was vitally necessary, a disobedient child was one who was shirking their work, putting the family’s and/or the tribe’s well being and survival at risk.

So, yes, it was harsh. No, we don’t do this anymore (this post is already getting too long and I’m not going into the reasons why), but all the other cultures surrounding the Hebrews allowed for killing of children for any reason. The OT limited it to direct disobedience, which was a step forward from everybody else.

 

[njlisa]

This is the classic way that professors try to cow their students
into rejecting their faith – particularly Christianity. By the time I
finished college (in the 1980s), I was a Marxist and an atheist.
I must have been eager to please. But I pray to God to forgive me
of my time of being a smug, communist, atheist. I have studied
the Bible quite a bit. I’ll let others do the chapter and verse citations
that will help you rebound from this treatment.

I urge you to take advantage of the Bible Project on YouTube.
These guys do a great job of explaining the Bible. God bless you!

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVfwlh9XpX2Y_tQfjeln9QA

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Your teacher has problems. At the very least, he has not even tried to explain OT in the historic context of the relatively horrible times and short lifespans as someone else said.

I’d find a new teacher who does not bring his personal biases into the classroom.

 

[ServantofChristos]

Right now it’s to late to change classes. I don’t know if I should report him or try to talk to him about it. But if I’d confront him about this he’d probably tell me to wait till class starts and misinterpret my argument and humiliate me in front of everyone.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

You’re unfortunately going to run into ignorant and biased professors in the world. I’ve had my share. I’d suggest if you can’t easily drop the class or change, just do what you need to do to get through it, realizing the professor is way off base on his views of Christianity, and do any reporting of him or whatever after you get your final grade.

You don’t say where you are going to school. If it’s in some heavily “Christian” area, the prof’s views may reflect his frustrations with his perception of Christianity as stunting intellectual growth. I used to know a prof who taught in the Deep South who was really hung up about this.

 

[midori]

Oo, this was actually kind of cool. I ran into this and thought of this thread.

There’s a book called The History of European Morals from Augustus to Charlemagne, by Lecky. Vol. 1 and Vol. 2. Originally published in 1869 (?), it was a great favorite of Mark Twain (he pulled from it a bunch of information in Huckleberry Finn, The Prince and the Pauper, and Connecticut Yankee).

As far as Lecky himself goes, I haven’t pinned down his personal belief system, but I read that “European Morals” was supposed to be a “skeptical rebuttal of Christianity” and that “even [Lecky] was forced to admit the ameliorating
influences of Christianity from the beginning”, which seem to indicate that he is no great friend of Christianity in general, even though he had, at least at one point, decided to study divinity to become a priest of the Church of Ireland.

But even such a man was honest about the influences of Christianity on things like gladiatorial games, slavery, poverty, famine, and disease. Click on v. 2 and ctrl-f for “rudimentary virtues”— there’s way too much to copy and paste, but the part I was reading starts off with—

Christianity for the first time made charity a rudimentary virtue, giving it a leading place in the moral type, and in the exhortations of its teachers. Besides its general influence in stimulating the affections, it effected a complete revolution in this sphere, by regarding the poor as the special representatives of the Christian Founder, and thus making the love of Christ, rather than the love of man, the principle of charity. Even in the days of persecution, collections for the relief of the poor were made at the Sunday meetings. The agapæ or feasts of love were intended mainly for the poor, and food that was saved by the fasts was devoted to their benefit. A vast organisation of charity, presided over [80] by the bishops, and actively directed by the deacons, soon ramified over Christendom, till the bond of charity became the bond of unity, and the most distant sections of the Christian Church corresponded by the interchange of mercy. Long before the era of Constantine, it was observed that the charities of the Christians were so extensive—it may, perhaps, be said so excessive—that they drew very many impostors to the Church;1 and when the victory of Christianity was achieved, the enthusiasm for charity displayed itself in the erection of numerous institutions that were altogether unknown to the Pagan world.