What is there to say about slavery and the Bible? Especially the Old Testament? (MERGED)

[lax16]

Surely you can direct me to the part of such a study that specifically deals with the part where God seemingly endorses purchasing, owning, and beating slaves.

Because the last thread I was in yesterday evening I was chided for going off on a tangent, even though I was merely correcting someone who was repeatedly saying things that were very much not true.

In general, not just with religion, when someone preforms acts or advocates for the unspeakable it doesn’t get nullified by other good works. Take a look at once-beloved British television presenter Sir Jimmy Savile. It’s said he generated over 40 million pounds in donations to charity, but then his sexual abuse scandal came to light after his death. But we’re getting off-topic.

Again we’re getting off topic. Do a search on Mother Teresa in Catholic Answers and you’ll see some issues that have been raised.

I want to focus on the intersection of Christianity and slavery, since that’s a topic where too often poor explanations are accepted and I feel it’s important that reasonable objections to those explanations don’t get ignored or moved aside.

Have you ever tried focusing on the good things people have done because of their love for God?

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Have you ever tried focusing on the good things people have done because of their love for God?

People have done good things because of their religion and have done bad things because of their religion. Non-religious have done good and bad things.

My concern is the inability for many religious to say that slavery is wrong because they don’t want to sully the character of God.

Back on-topic, anything I can look at that considers the objections I’ve given in this thread?

 

[lax16]

People have done good things because of their religion and have done bad things because of their religion. Non-religious have done good and bad things.

My concern is the inability for many religious to say that slavery is wrong because they don’t want to sully the character of God.

Back on-topic, anything I can look at that considers the objections I’ve given in this thread?

In my opinion, you have been given many objections and explanations and have discounted them all.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

In my opinion, you have been given many objections and explanations and have discounted them all.

No one has given a reason to explain why God gave instructions to a nomadic people in the desert who had been slaves themselves for 430 years how to purchase, own, blackmail, and beat slaves.

No one has explained why God said to not follow the practices of neighboring cultures but simply had to take it into consideration when deciding to ease people out of slavery.

No one has shown why God was so severe in demanding certain practices be done without easing (like circumcision, honoring the Sabbath, and not stealing) while something so abominable as slavery takes over two millennia to get eased out of.

Nothing has been presented against my arguments.

 

[mikekle]

No one has given a reason to explain why God gave instructions to a nomadic people in the desert who had been slaves themselves for 430 years how to purchase, own, blackmail, and beat slaves.

No one has explained why God said to not follow the practices of neighboring cultures but simply had to take it into consideration when deciding to ease people out of slavery.

No one has shown why God was so severe in demanding certain practices be done without easing (like circumcision, honoring the Sabbath, and not stealing) while something so abominable as slavery takes over two millennia to get eased out of.

Nothing has been presented against my arguments.

It all boils down to Gods ways are not mans ways, just because we think something is wrong or cruel, does not mean God thinks the same…in the end, what we think makes no difference, keep in mind, many times, the enemy is at work here, trying to make it seem like we are right and God is wrong.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

It all boils down to Gods ways are not mans ways, just because we think something is wrong or cruel, does not mean God thinks the same…in the end, what we think makes no difference, keep in mind, many times, the enemy is at work here, trying to make it seem like we are right and God is wrong.

It’s not uncommon to retreat, to fall back to a position of mystery when plain logic comes up so completely empty. It’s a non-answer to valid questions.

If you want to say the mind of God is incomprehensible to man, go right ahead. It’s neither provable nor falsifiable. But what we can comment on are actions. As I noted earlier we don’t teach our children wrong and then expect them to later know what is right. God is said to have taken a hard stance on very many different things, but when it came to slavery he took the exact opposite approach – showing his people how to systematically enact cruelty on others. This weening off of slavery was supposed to take how long? Two millennia and it wasn’t God who finally said there will be no slavery.

What’s interesting is that if this were another faith tradition and a believer talked about how his or her deity called for such sadistic practices, I don’t think many who give Yahweh this blind acceptance would buy into that other believer saying the same for his or her deity.

 

[lax16]

No one has given a reason to explain why God gave instructions to a nomadic people in the desert who had been slaves themselves for 430 years how to purchase, own, blackmail, and beat slaves.

No one has explained why God said to not follow the practices of neighboring cultures but simply had to take it into consideration when deciding to ease people out of slavery.

No one has shown why God was so severe in demanding certain practices be done without easing (like circumcision, honoring the Sabbath, and not stealing) while something so abominable as slavery takes over two millennia to get eased out of.

Nothing has been presented against my arguments.

Yes, they have been presented.

I am not sure if you are rejecting answers because you disagree or don’t want to hear it. Either way, you have been given many answers to your arguments.

If I come across more on the subject, I will post a link. I can’t say it will answer your questions specifically, but may be a more general approach to the topic.

 

[lax16]

It’s not uncommon to retreat, to fall back to a position of mystery when plain logic comes up so completely empty. It’s a non-answer to valid questions.

If you want to say the mind of God is incomprehensible to man, go right ahead. It’s neither provable nor falsifiable. But what we can comment on are actions. As I noted earlier we don’t teach our children wrong and then expect them to later know what is right. God is said to have taken a hard stance on very many different things, but when it came to slavery he took the exact opposite approach – showing his people how to systematically enact cruelty on others. This weening off of slavery was supposed to take how long? Two millennia and it wasn’t God who finally said there will be no slavery.

What’s interesting is that if this were another faith tradition and a believer talked about how his or her deity called for such sadistic practices, I don’t think many who give Yahweh this blind acceptance would buy into that other believer saying the same for his or her deity.

Here’s a few links. Not sure if you have already read these:

newadvent.org/cathen/14036a.htm

the-american-catholic.com/2012/04/30/slaverymeme/

catholiceducation.org/en/controversy/common-misconceptions/let-my-people-go-the-catholic-church-and-slavery.html

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Yes, they have been presented.

What was the reason given to explain why God gave instructions to a nomadic people in the desert who had been slaves themselves for 430 years how to purchase, own, blackmail, and beat slaves?

What was the reason given to explain why God said to not follow the practices of neighboring cultures but simply had to take it into consideration when deciding to ease people out of slavery?

What was the reason given to explain why God was so severe in demanding certain practices be done without easing (like circumcision, honoring the Sabbath, and not stealing) while something so abominable as slavery takes over two millennia to get eased out of?

Just a sentence or two on these would be fine.

I am not sure if you are rejecting answers because you disagree or don’t want to hear it. Either way, you have been given many answers to your arguments.

I’m more than willing to listen, but if the best answer is essentially stating that we don’t have an answer because God is incomprehensible to man (aka He’s a mystery) then what is an open-minded person to think, since such non-answers would not be acceptable for other deities?

If I come across more on the subject, I will post a link. I can’t say it will answer your questions specifically, but may be a more general approach to the topic.

Everything I’ve read so far falls under the weening theory, or God is a mystery, or it wasn’t God who said what was said in the Bible but Moses, or other such nonsense. I have presented several counterclaims to these explanations, and I’d hope I could get solid responses.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Here’s a few links. Not sure if you have already read these:

newadvent.org/cathen/14036a.htm

the-american-catholic.com/2012/04/30/slaverymeme/

catholiceducation.org/en/controversy/common-misconceptions/let-my-people-go-the-catholic-church-and-slavery.html

Thank you for the links. I’m heading to work shortly, but I’ll check them out tonight.

 

[lax16]

It’s not uncommon to retreat, to fall back to a position of mystery when plain logic comes up so completely empty. It’s a non-answer to valid questions.

If you want to say the mind of God is incomprehensible to man, go right ahead. It’s neither provable nor falsifiable. But what we can comment on are actions. As I noted earlier we don’t teach our children wrong and then expect them to later know what is right. God is said to have taken a hard stance on very many different things, but when it came to slavery he took the exact opposite approach – showing his people how to systematically enact cruelty on others. This weening off of slavery was supposed to take how long? Two millennia and it wasn’t God who finally said there will be no slavery.

What’s interesting is that if this were another faith tradition and a believer talked about how his or her deity called for such sadistic practices, I don’t think many who give Yahweh this blind acceptance would buy into that other believer saying the same for his or her deity.

I don’t mean this as an insult, and if the shoe doesn’t fit, well…

Do you realize that many atheists talk down to people, disregard their opinions and answers and generally think they are smarter than everyone else? They think religious people are stupid and blind?

 

[Tomdstone]

I don’t mean this as an insult, and if the shoe doesn’t fit, well…

Do you realize that many atheists talk down to people, disregard their opinions and answers and generally think they are smarter than everyone else? They think religious people are stupid and blind?

What you say about atheists can be said mutatis mutandis about some Christian posters or bloggers.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I don’t mean this as an insult, and if the shoe doesn’t fit, well…

Do you realize that many atheists talk down to people, disregard their opinions and answers and generally think they are smarter than everyone else? They think religious people are stupid and blind?

What are you are seeing from me is not condescension but frustration. Normally when people discuss a topic it goes something like this:

Person 1: I think A is true.
Person 2: A can not be true because of X, Y, and Z.
Person 1: X is not true because of B and C. Y is true, but it doesn’t affect whether A is true. Z is interesting and I’ll have to look at it further.

This topic has gone more like this:

Person 1: I think A is true.
Me: A can not be true because of X, Y, and Z.
Person 1: No, A is true.
Me: I know you believe that, but have you considered X, Y, and Z?
Person 2: You’re right person 1, A is true.
Me: Here’s more detail on X, Y, and Z. It shows A can’t be true.
Person 3: The reason why A is true is a mystery, but it certainly is true.
Person 4: Hey, you’ve already been told A is true.
Me: No one has addressed X, Y, and Z.
Person 4: Yes they have.
Me: Show me where anyone addressed X, Y, and Z.
Person 4: A is true! A is true! You’re not willing to listen.

And so on and so on.

It’s common practice for those against a claim to offer counter-claims. Those for the claim then usually address the counter-claims. Just restated that the claim is true and ignoring the counter-claims will not lead anybody to the truth.

As Tomdstone quite correctly stated:

What you say about atheists can be said mutatis mutandis about some Christian posters or bloggers.

Rudness and condescension are not limited to one or a few groups.

I hope you understand my frustration in this discussion. I still haven’t read those links (as I’m on my lunch/dinner break) but when I do I’ll post my thoughts.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Here’s a few links. Not sure if you have already read these:

I should note that none of the articles is technically on-topic as they all talk abour the Church’s place in slavery and not God’s allowing of slavery in the Bible; but since God is said to work on earth through the church I’m more than ready to respond.

newadvent.org/cathen/14036a.htm

This is knee-deep in moral relativism. It goes to great lengths to show the differences between Roman slavery and Church slavery. I find the note about how slaves were to be given Sundays and holidays off morbidly funny. Just think of a master getting his beatings in late Saturday before not being able to do so on Sunday. We don’t say you can’t rape someone on Sundays and ok the rest of the week, we say rape is wrong always and the same should be true for slavery.

None of the articles, including this one, even hint at Dum Diversas existing. The lengths one will go to bear false witness in the protection of one’s faith.

the-american-catholic.com/2012/04/30/slaverymeme/

This one took a lot of words to say practically nothing. It’s a snarky rehash of the weening off of slavery trope which I’ve shown fails on several fronts.

catholiceducation.org/en/controversy/common-misconceptions/let-my-people-go-the-catholic-church-and-slavery.html

This article references several Church documents, but does so untruthfully. Here are just a few of the faults I saw on first glance:

It tries to differentiate between so-called “chattel slavery” and indentured servitude, then completely ignores how the “just slavery” endorsed by the Church was evil and cruel.

It makes the claim that Paul telling masters to treat slaves justly is on par with being against slavery.

It talks about how the Church freed some slaves but purposely doesn’t mention The Fourth Council of Toledo which says if a slave is freed by the Church that person is bound to serve the Chruch for the rest of his life because the Church is unending. As I mentioned in a different thread, it’s all about power and not doing what is right. One way or the other the Church was going to get every drop of effort from a person whether as a slave or a freed man.

It references Sicut Dudum, which limited the enslavement of the native peoples – except that it purposely doesn’t state how this bull was amended after complaints from the king of Spain that it was hurting his slave trade. In the end the bull only protect those Canary Island natives that agreed to become Christians. As I told you in our other thread where you linked to an article with the same untruths, it’s important to note that the bull made it so the Spaniards could enslave any non-Christian native even though there was no declaration of war.

It references Sublimis Deus and makes absolutely no reference to the fact that it was rescinded a year later with Non Indecens Videtur. You can’t claim credit for issuing a decree against slavery in the New World if the pope tears it up soon after.

It references In Supremo Apostolatus. I’m going to save myself some time and just copy and paste what I posted to you in our last thread:

This is a somewhat positive step in calling slavery wrong, although doesn’t do it as plainly or clearly as it does in Vatican II, There are still two problems. One, the initial translation uses the term “unjustly” when talking about enslaving Indains and black people. As this wiki article explains this word may have led those clergy in the Americas to continue to support slave-holding interests. A translation over a century later removes the word unjustly even though the Latin word “injuste” is clearly part of the bull. Two, the article you linked to led to questions as to what was or was not being denounced. If I tell someone something and they relay that information incorrectly to others, I make all efforts to correct that. If the bull was being misapplied (which the article claims had occurred), where was the Church in correcting this misunderstanding? And even if we are to say that the purpose of the bull was to denounce both slavery and the slave trade, why did it take 17 centuriesowned

slaves?

I have to ask if you peruse these articles before linking to them, or do you just do a Google search and post the results here. If it’s the latter, I can do that If you want to make statements of fact you have to back them up. I spent the time reading and analyzing three very bad articles and I’d hope that you at least read them (and perhaps vouched for their accuracy) before you asked me to spend my time on them.

 

[lax16]

What you say about atheists can be said mutatis mutandis about some Christian posters or bloggers.

Of course. But I was responding to Mike from NJ and his posting style. I would like to have a dialogue with everyone but have grown weary of trying to talk with people, atheists, who have said to my face, that I (along with other Christians) are stupid and should not be allowed to be stupid any longer.

Now, Mike from NJ has not come out and said exactly the same thing, however we must all calm down and respect one another’s view points or the conversation stops.

I think we should be charitable even if we disagree.

 

[lax16]

What are you are seeing from me is not condescension but frustration. Normally when people discuss a topic it goes something like this:

Person 1: I think A is true.
Person 2: A can not be true because of X, Y, and Z.
Person 1: X is not true because of B and C. Y is true, but it doesn’t affect whether A is true. Z is interesting and I’ll have to look at it further.

This topic has gone more like this:

Person 1: I think A is true.
Me: A can not be true because of X, Y, and Z.
Person 1: No, A is true.
Me: I know you believe that, but have you considered X, Y, and Z?
Person 2: You’re right person 1, A is true.
Me: Here’s more detail on X, Y, and Z. It shows A can’t be true.
Person 3: The reason why A is true is a mystery, but it certainly is true.
Person 4: Hey, you’ve already been told A is true.
Me: No one has addressed X, Y, and Z.
Person 4: Yes they have.
Me: Show me where anyone addressed X, Y, and Z.
Person 4: A is true! A is true! You’re not willing to listen.

And so on and so on.

I understand your frustration. However, as been stated to you numerous times, others do not share the same concern you do concerning the topic of slavery and yet have attempted to present their ideas and opinions only to be told it is not enough.

It’s common practice for those against a claim to offer counter-claims. Those for the claim then usually address the counter-claims. Just restated that the claim is true and ignoring the counter-claims will not lead anybody to the truth.

I have read through all of the posts on this thread. Nobody is ignoring the truth. We have all given what we believe to be good answers. You obviously disagree and yet, insist we provide answers that you agree with.

As Tomdstone quite correctly stated:

Rudness and condescension are not limited to one or a few groups.

I hope you understand my frustration in this discussion. I still haven’t read those links (as I’m on my lunch/dinner break) but when I do I’ll post my thoughts.

I have not read one post directed at you that is rude or condescending, IMO.

 

[lax16]

I should note that none of the articles is technically on-topic as they all talk abour the Church’s place in slavery and not God’s allowing of slavery in the Bible; but since God is said to work on earth through the church I’m more than ready to respond.

This is knee-deep in moral relativism. It goes to great lengths to show the differences between Roman slavery and Church slavery. I find the note about how slaves were to be given Sundays and holidays off morbidly funny. Just think of a master getting his beatings in late Saturday before not being able to do so on Sunday. We don’t say you can’t rape someone on Sundays and ok the rest of the week, we say rape is wrong always and the same should be true for slavery.

None of the articles, including this one, even hint at Dum Diversas existing. The lengths one will go to bear false witness in the protection of one’s faith.

This one took a lot of words to say practically nothing. It’s a snarky rehash of the weening off of slavery trope which I’ve shown fails on several fronts.

This article references several Church documents, but does so untruthfully. Here are just a few of the faults I saw on first glance:

It tries to differentiate between so-called “chattel slavery” and indentured servitude, then completely ignores how the “just slavery” endorsed by the Church was evil and cruel.

It makes the claim that Paul telling masters to treat slaves justly is on par with being against slavery.

It talks about how the Church freed some slaves but purposely doesn’t mention The Fourth Council of Toledo which says if a slave is freed by the Church that person is bound to serve the Chruch for the rest of his life because the Church is unending. As I mentioned in a different thread, it’s all about power and not doing what is right. One way or the other the Church was going to get every drop of effort from a person whether as a slave or a freed man.

It references Sicut Dudum, which limited the enslavement of the native peoples – except that it purposely doesn’t state how this bull was amended after complaints from the king of Spain that it was hurting his slave trade. In the end the bull only protect those Canary Island natives that agreed to become Christians. As I told you in our other thread where you linked to an article with the same untruths, it’s important to note that the bull made it so the Spaniards could enslave any non-Christian native even though there was no declaration of war.

It references Sublimis Deus and makes absolutely no reference to the fact that it was rescinded a year later with Non Indecens Videtur. You can’t claim credit for issuing a decree against slavery in the New World if the pope tears it up soon after.

It references In Supremo Apostolatus. I’m going to save myself some time and just copy and paste what I posted to you in our last thread:

I have to ask if you peruse these articles before linking to them, or do you just do a Google search and post the results here. If it’s the latter, I can do that If you want to make statements of fact you have to back them up. I spent the time reading and analyzing three very bad articles and I’d hope that you at least read them (and perhaps vouched for their accuracy) before you asked me to spend my time on them.

As I said in post #68, I would provide links that may not be specific to your questions, but more general in nature.

Mike from NJ, I wish you all the best in your quest for truth. I won’t be adding any more to your frustration or to the discussion.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Of course. But I was responding to Mike from NJ and his posting style. I would like to have a dialogue with everyone but have grown weary of trying to talk with people, atheists, who have said to my face, that I (along with other Christians) are stupid and should not be allowed to be stupid any longer.

Now, Mike from NJ has not come out and said exactly the same thing,

I would go so far as to say that I didn’t even imply such a thing. I have not derided anyone on this thread. My posting style, as you call it, is one that accepts no quarter when it comes to things like dodging questions, non-answers, and unsupported statements of fact. We, all of us here, are in a discussion on a particular topic. It’s not just courteous, but expected, that if we state something that we must be willing to substantiate it. Discourse can’t happen without that. Please understand that I am in no way disparaging your intelligence but that I am unhappy with your unwillingness to corroborate claims that you have made.

however we must all calm down and respect one another’s view points or the conversation stops.

I would alter that slightly. We should respect one another’s right to his or her viewpoints, but we are under no obligation to respect the viewpoints themselves.

I think we should be charitable even if we disagree.

I have been quite charitable. I have not accused anyone of calling me stupid without evidence to support it.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I understand your frustration. However, as been stated to you numerous times, others do not share the same concern you do concerning the topic of slavery and yet have attempted to present their ideas and opinions only to be told it is not enough.

There are numerous topics on CAF that hold no interest for me. Topics about how the Church can increase vocations do not hold my attention. But if I do find a topic that is interesting enough in I will contribute. I will have some level of concern with the topic. No one is under any obligation whatsoever to continue in a thread after posting it, but that also doesn’t mean that the statements made by those who don’t address the counter-claims against them can’t be faulty.

“and yet have attempted to present their ideas and opinions only to be told it is not enough”. There is no “attempt”. They have presented their cases. And it is perfectly right for me or anyone to say that those cases are wrong and that more is needed.

Let’s try an analogy. Let’s say that user RCCHater73 posts in a thread claiming something about the Church which is not true. Others of similar outlook make similar posts. A Catholic makes detailed responses showing evidence and reasoning how the accusations simply can’t be true. Those earlier posters don’t address this evidence and repeat themselves. The Catholic in this scenario might very well be frustrated as communication has come to a grinding halt.

I have read through all of the posts on this thread. Nobody is ignoring the truth. We have all given what we believe to be good answers. You obviously disagree and yet, insist we provide answers that you agree with.

I am no way insisting that others provide answers that agree with me. I am insisting that my points be addressed and not ignored. If I show evidence that my client wasn’t in town the night of the murder, it’s quite reasonable to expect the district attorney will address this alibi and not just ignore it and repeat that my client is guilty.

We are not only in a discussion forum, not only is it a discussion forum under the heading of apologetics, but we’re in a forum thread on what is a controversial subject. When an arguments faults are pointed to it’s only right to admit they are faulty or show why they are not.

I have not read one post directed at you that is rude or condescending, IMO.

And in no way did I say that I did. If you are accusing me of stating that you were rude or condescending then please back up that accusation.

No, my comment was in response to your comment addressed to me:

Originally Posted by lax16 View Post
I don’t mean this as an insult, and if the shoe doesn’t fit, well…

Do you realize that many atheists talk down to people, disregard their opinions and answers and generally think they are smarter than everyone else? They think religious people are stupid and blind?

I felt it important that since you were painting atheists with an overly large brush that such talking down happens on both sides of the aisle as it were. It was certainly not an attack on your character or that of anyone else – merely a correction of a stereotype lobbied in my direction.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

As I said in post #68, I would provide links that may not be specific to your questions, but more general in nature.

Mike from NJ, I wish you all the best in your quest for truth. I won’t be adding any more to your frustration or to the discussion.

I hope that before you leave this thread that you understand this from my perspective. As you know the case for and against God’s position on slavery in the Bible have been laid out here in some detail. I’m not sure what benefit would come from articles that merely retread the same ground. Not only that I think it’s a bit unfair to expect me to take 20-30 minutes out of my time to go through those links when I don’t believe even a fraction of that time was spent going over those articles before linking to them. If someone is trying to convince you that we are saved by faith alone by linking to a 25 minute YouTube video it’s only appropriate to expect that person first watched that same video and made sure it was both edifying and not just the same points rehashed.