Okay. Thanks for your reply. You're a non-believer, yourself, right?
Does God approve of slavery?
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
exchemist:
Two problems immediately occur to me. One is that if the bible is truly "inspired by" (let alone more or less directly written by) an all-seeing God, then why could that God not see that slavery was wrong back in biblical times, and tell his followers in no uncertain terms at that time? Or did God perhaps change his mind some time in the last 2000 years?
The other problem arises if believers hold that the bible is a fallible human document that does not truly reflect God's will or opinions, at least in some parts. In that case, my question is: what method(s) do believers use to decide which parts are flawed or ignorable in the modern era, and which parts are canon? And why didn't God make sure his Word was clear, in the first place?
To put it another way, my impression is that the various writers tended to come to their biblical scholarship with a view of slavery already in mind. They then tried to "interpret" the bible one way or the other to suit their own preconceptions.
After all, it seems there is still plenty of latitude for modern Christians to argue that God approves of slavery, based on the bible and the arguments that have been used in the past to justify it.
I wonder: at what point do "apostolic traditions", or similar, cross the line into attempts to re-write scriptures?
That sounds a bit like an argument that slavery was acceptable in the past - in biblical times, say - but it isn't acceptable now, and we should excuse the peoples of the past for some reason.
Two problems immediately occur to me. One is that if the bible is truly "inspired by" (let alone more or less directly written by) an all-seeing God, then why could that God not see that slavery was wrong back in biblical times, and tell his followers in no uncertain terms at that time? Or did God perhaps change his mind some time in the last 2000 years?
The other problem arises if believers hold that the bible is a fallible human document that does not truly reflect God's will or opinions, at least in some parts. In that case, my question is: what method(s) do believers use to decide which parts are flawed or ignorable in the modern era, and which parts are canon? And why didn't God make sure his Word was clear, in the first place?
I disagree. It seems to me that slavery was taken very much for granted at the beginning, and for a long time afterwards, by Christians. Concerns might well have been expressed regarding the ill treatment of slaves, but that is very different from questioning the moral validity of the institution itself.
To me, the same history reads as a very rocky road, along which various Popes and Christian writers either tolerated slavery (some apparently going so far as to explicitly defend it) or wrote about its evils. None of that strikes me as the sort of progress that would have been directed by a God, but rather as a process very much reliant on individual human feelings and instincts.
To put it another way, my impression is that the various writers tended to come to their biblical scholarship with a view of slavery already in mind. They then tried to "interpret" the bible one way or the other to suit their own preconceptions.
Again, I have my doubts. Can you really be sure that no Christian would approve of slavery today? Or only "true" Christians (i.e. the ones who agree with you)?
After all, it seems there is still plenty of latitude for modern Christians to argue that God approves of slavery, based on the bible and the arguments that have been used in the past to justify it.
Not necessarily, but it's complicated. As concerns ownership/trade/treatment of slaves, from ancient to modern times Jews participated in slave trade and ownership very much as did Europeans, et al--in the U.S., for instance, there were plenty of Jewish Confederates even--though there were very convoluted rules pertaining to matters of owning Jewish and/or Christian slaves. Through the Middle Ages, I believe, Jewish slavery more resembled something akin to indentured servitude.
But as to the matter of the authoritativeness of the commentaries, I've honestly never gotten a clear answer on that. Post-Enlightenment movements (Conservative, Orthodox, Reform, etc.) vary enormously with respect to both interpretation as well as methodologies for interpretation. However, my own interests have always been with the outlying and outsider trends, whose approaches can perhaps best be likened to the Rilkean "Live in the question."
It kinda goes without saying that contemporary Judaism opposes slavery, but as to how it reconciles such opposition with the seemingly contrary texts? I think that even the dominant traditions have a bit of Rilke's "Live in the question"--or, at least, they embrace the contradictions. For instance, have you read or are you familiar with Max Brooks' World War Z? Spoiler alert: Israel fares better than any other country against the zombie apocalypse. That's not simply happenstance, Brooks really thought that through. I realize that I'm sort of talking around your query, but I'm not intentionally being evasive here. Also, keep in mind, I'm a mischling with a wholly non-religious upbringing--my proper studies of Judaism concern more generally esoteric shit, and the rest I gleaned via osmosis by virtue of practically every third person I've ever known being Jewish.
There's apologetics and then there's something like this, from Art Spiegelman's Maus:
Not exactly moral relativism, but rather--as exchemist notes--acknowledgement and acceptance of certain circumstances of a certain time and place, with a full awareness that things can and must change.
Obviously. I'm interested in mythologies and religions, but I don't participate.
I think it largely depends upon whom we are talking about, and whether we're addressing hunter-gatherers proper or peoples more accurately described as pastoral nomads--and specifically, the nature of said "conquer(ing)." From Mead to Sahlins to present, anthropological thinking on the nature of warring between neighboring tribes and suchlike has evolved considerably--in some respects, it's almost an about-face. Briefly, much of what has previously been regarded as "conflict" more closely resembled "friendly rivalry"--something along the lines of a proto-Olympics or World Cup, say.
But I'll expand on that later--I've finally gotten around to watching season 9 of The Walking Dead, and I'm curious as to what Daryl's dog, Dog, will get up to next.
I don't think that's true at all. The regular mentions of it in the Bible - and the guidance that slaves should be treated well if one wants to be in God's good graces - is pretty clear evidence that a GOOD slaveowner (owning a good slave) was seen as a good thing in the Bible.
Well, some do. But clearly the vast majority have evolved in their morality.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Sorry I meant from the beginning of Christianity. But yes, the Wiki article I posted makes it plain that the attitude of the church has waxed and waned over the centuries.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Re-writing scripture requires production of a new edition of the bible, with changes intended to alter the meaning. That does not happen to any significant extent - though it is true that new translations are commissioned with the object of elucidating meaning. If you compare the (Anglican-commissioned) Authorised Version, from 400 years ago, with say the (Catholic-commissioned) Jerusalem bible of the 1960s, the main changes are updates to the language.
However the teaching of the churches about what the bible means certainly does slightly change, both in emphasis and in some of its details over time, since obviously the way the Christian should apply the Christian message to his or her life will depend to some extent on the culture they are part of.
I'm not quite so stupid as to get suckered into a No True Scotsman debate with you about Christianity
. All I can do is try to speak according to my (non-specialist) understanding of the tradition in which I grew up, which was a blend of Catholicism, Anglicanism and Methodism, i.e. all mainstream Western branches of Christianity. I have had only limited contact with Calvinists, Baptists and the kaleidoscope of fundamentalist Protestant sects, or indeed with Eastern Christianity (though doctrinally Orthodox and Catholic are generally pretty close, I gather). If you want to criticise what you think may be their stance on this issue, you will need to find someone else to talk to about that.
Last edited:
foghorn
Valued Senior Member
I can see where your coming from, I can't see how early writers got their info about the thoughts of a god. How is that done? I mean, in the past on this site I've been told bible stories are just that, stories. I did ask the person who told me that, if they considered Jesus was the son of God to be a story too? Never got a reply.
If that person was to reply with say ''It doesn't matter if it was a story or not'', I would still be asking how did the early writers obtain the thoughts of a god?
Last edited:
Hmm. I am pretty sure slaveowners in the US South used the Bible to justify slavery before the Civil War. They even used it to justify beatings and whippings. From a Virginian bishop to slaves of the area: "is it not possible you may have done some other bad thing which was never discovered and that Almighty God, who saw you doing it, would not let you escape without punishment one time or another? And ought you not in such a case to give glory to Him, and be thankful that He would rather punish you in this life for your wickedness than destroy your souls for it in the next life?"
https://time.com/5171819/christianity-slavery-book-excerpt/
I've heard in other places that God directly guided the writing, or perhaps dictated directly to the writers. On sciforums, though, our resident theists seem reticent to venture any opinion on the matter, for some reason.
See what I mean?
Last edited:
In the Christian world, the vast majority of these literalist sorts reside in the U.S., obviously (and unfortunately--for us, that is). With Islam, haven't a clue. But as regards Jews--you've likely heard it said that the vast majority of Jews--meaning specifically the "religious" sort, as opposed to just ethnically--are atheists and/or agnostics. In my own personal experience, I've yet to meet a Jew who actually literally believes any of that shit. At most, some hold some sort of pantheistic/panentheistic conception of god and regard the texts as "just stories," or attempts to document history--and this includes a fair number of rabbis, yeshiva scholars and the like.
Of course, that's not to say that there aren't plenty of Jews who are "believers" in a stricter sense, still the disparity between Jews and the other Abrahamists in this respect is quite stark. I've always wondered what's to account for the difference. Historically, Jews have tended to get the short end of the stick, bluntly, as compared with the rest, that could certainly foster a strong sense of doubt. Likewise, the import of, uh, scholarship and actually learning shit outside of the scriptures has long been integral to Judaism. Still, I figure there's gotta be something else there to account for the virtual absence of literalists and fundamentalists.
You obviously haven't tried very hard:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/B6yrEkzV6HKp/ (this link is additional to YouTube one below)
Last edited:
So I'm supposed to go out of my way to meet fundamentalists and the like? Why the fuck would I do that? It's not as though I'm an anthropologist or the like, wherein it might be my business to do such, so... Perhaps you could further explain your seemingly pointless interjection?
Hardly pointless, and I made no suggestion you had to go to Israel and meet those crazies. And given the thread title, it was imo a needed corrective to your last sentence in #52. You still think that? Don't answer if that will upset you to the point of uttering profanities again.
You do understand what "in my own personal experience" means, ja? It's a fucking observation, not a scientific determination. So, no, your so-called "corrective" is simply more bullshit.
So, cranky as hell, with more profanities. Maybe I needed to highlight the last sentence in #52, which is:
"Still, I figure there's gotta be something else there to account for the virtual absence of literalists and fundamentalists."
Nothing to do with personal encounters there. It was a statement claiming fundamentalist/religious Jews were scarce - Period! I showed that was just wrong - Period!
And my #53 dealt with many religious 'God fearing' Jews attitudes to slavery as per OP. One can only hope those proper comments won't stimulate another cranky profanity laced outburst. Checking back, I see you have expressed a great deal of historical/anthropological knowledge, but then there is your #18.
Context is helpful. The sentence beginning the paragraph, which you didn't bother to cite:
And seriously, what the fuck is with you people about "profanity?" "Fuck" is a rather unique word: it can be used in multitude of ways, and it's got quite a few meanings. Fucking amazing, fucking shit, fuck off, I don't give a fuck, what the fuck? Notice how it doesn't have fuck-all to do with "sexual intercourse" in each of those examples?
Either way, you're clearly either dishonest or stupid, so please stop wasting my time.
Edit: Also:
Yep, I studied anthropology--among a few other things. Doesn't make me an anthropologist. Your point here? Seriously.
Last edited:
Check back yourself. There is no such 'next sentence'. Not even in your following posts #54, #56. Delusional evidently. I could report you for insulting me without any cause in #58, but it's not my style.
(your string of profanities there is contrary to site rules, but for some reason it's very rare mods object to such.)
Ah, you edited original 'very next sentence' to 'The sentence beginning the paragraph' as late edit. Whatever. Bye.
As evidenced by your post prior to this one, you clearly indicated that you had reviewed ("checking back") my posts within this thread, so how did you miss the first sentence of a paragraph from which you quoted the last sentence? To my eyes, that smacks of dishonesty or stupidity, so... Go ahead, "report" away.