Slavery in the Bible

[cnorman18]

--

If you'll provide biblical references to back up the various claims you make, I'll take a stab at it.

If you own a Bible, and it has an index, these references are not hard to find; but if you insist--

Killing a slave is murder--Exodus 21:12. (since this passage falls in the middle of a section concerning slaves, it was assumed to apply to slaves as well; but in any case, it is explicit in 23:20.)

Injured slave goes free--Exodus 21:26.

Law on captured women, Deuteronomy 21:10-14

Sabbath rest for slaves--Deuteronomy 5:14.

Prohibition of returning an escaped slave to his master--Deuteronomy 23:16-17.

The other laws I mentioned are not explicitly given, as I thought, but are Talmudic and derived from the above. I regret that error, but I'll stand by my point.

 

[T'ai Chi]

In these discussions, no one blames natural selection for evolving in a way to make slavery over 'the savages' OK, no surprise around these parts.

Basically slavery was condemed and abolished and condoned by the religious and by the anti-religious alike. Im doubtful one can say that certain group was entirely responsible for it or for its abolishment or that there is some correlation.

 

[cnorman18]

--

Hang on you saidSo the bible is criticised for two reasons 1. it does not denounce slavery and 2 it does not outlaw slavery. You were looking at slavery, not the treatment of individual slaves that you may own, but the concept of slavery. You have not shown that the bible either denounces or outlaws slavery. You should have therefore concluded that the criticism was very fair. How the bible tells you to treat the people you have enslaved is a different question.

Can you read?

I dealt with the question of a general denunciation or prohibition (in the Bible, the two are generally synonymous) in my remarks about the place of slavery in the ancient world. I then introduced the issue of the treatment of slaves as a separate issue, as you seem to demand.

 

[Elizabeth I]

I have no argument with that. My point was that the "fiction" often also contains ethical teachings, which are generally positive within the context of their time; here, in the particular case of slavery.

It's not a rebuttal, but my reaction is, "So what?" Any piece of writing has to be interpreted within the context of its time. That may make it historically interesting, but doesn't necessarily mean it's useful.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

<< SNIP >>

My point was really only to show that the Biblical writers' views on slavery were eminently defensible in their time, and in contrast to the views of other societies, positively revolutionary.

<< SNIP >>

I think to show that these views were "positively revolutionary" you have to know, tell and provide references to what the laws, beliefs and acts of such other societies were. You have done none of that.

 

[FireGarden]

Slavery in the ancient world was just part of the natural order of things. Some people were rich, some were poor, and some were slaves. It never even occurred to the slaves themselves that there ought not be such an institution; they merely hoped to have a good master, or to be free someday (and have slaves of their own).

Advocating the abolition of slavery in, say, the 10th century BCE, or even the 1st, was literally unthinkable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery#Abolitionist_movements

The Persian Empire was the first civilization to ban slavery from its foundation and used paid labor for all of the empire's constructions and army. Cyrus the Great banned slavery in his charter of human rights, now kept in the British Museum.

[Quote of Cyrus] "As long as I am alive, I shall prevent unpaid, forced labor. "

And that was when? 530BC ish.

Cyrus is regarded as a monotheist. (And a Messiah, apparently, but you'd probably know more about that than I would). But he was also respectful to many gods:
http://www.cyrusgreat.com/content/view/16/2

May all the gods whom I have placed within their sanctuaries and resettled in their sacred cities, address a daily prayer in my favor before Bel and Nabu, that my days may be long, and may they recommend me to him, to Marduk my lord, they may say: "May Cyrus the King, who worships thee, and Cambysis his son ...... all gods I settled in a peaceful place, I sacrificed ducks and doves, I endeavored to repair their dwelling places ...... "

 

[NobbyNobbs]

Quite true; but since the overwhelming bulk of the ethical teaching in the Bible is clearly aimed at establishing positive moral standards of compassion, justice and liberty, it occurs to me that it is those who diligently search its pages and work so very hard to find evil there might more fairly be accused of doing the "cherry-picking."

I wonder a bit about this claim. I'm not dismissing it out of hand, but it makes me wonder if anyone's ever done a study of the bible, keeping track of the number of "good" and "evil" concepts and events mentioned. I'll bet the numbers are more even than you'd think.

But the rest of us find that there are much better places to look for moral guidance.

Agreed. Here's a pretty good one that doesn't rely on an invisible sky daddy.

In fact, it uses most of the moral guidance the bible offers, but without any reference to slavery, false idols, or genocide.

 

[-Fran-]

I wonder a bit about this claim. I'm not dismissing it out of hand, but it makes me wonder if anyone's ever done a study of the bible, keeping track of the number of "good" and "evil" concepts and events mentioned. I'll bet the numbers are more even than you'd think.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.htm

Goes a long way anyway.

 

[cnorman18]

--

Excuse me for butting in here, but I still feel that you have missed the point of why the argument is used, how it is used, and to what people it is directed to. Setting aside the question of if it's a good argument or not, and if it produces the desired effect to use it or not, it has still been misunderstood here.

What argument, specifically, are you referring to? If you're speaking of criticizing the Bible on the ground that it condones slavery, I think I've addressed that rather directly.

Whatever the reasons an argument is used, or to whomever it is directed, I think it's rather relevant to determine whether that argument is reasonable, don't you?

This seems a bit exaggerated. That is not how I personally see it, in any case. It doesn't really demand a diligent search to find something in the bible that is offensive in modern eyes. You usually just have to close your eyes and point...

I think that is a bit exaggerated, as well.

But the point is that it was written in different times, and as such has not (should not have) much bearing today.

Does that necessarily follow? Are ALL ancient documents to be discarded, or only those with a religious bent? Do we toss out Aristotle, too?

The bible itself is not offensive to me, it's the current use of it.

And you would no doubt find me in agreement with you, more often than not.

Sure there are good things in it as well. But it is hardly the sole source of "good ethical stuff" to live by...

I never said it was.

...so why place such an importance on it? That's what I wonder when people do place such an importance on it.

Because, while it is not the only source of ethical teachings, it is a source. The fashion around here seems to be to ignore it entirely and deride it as wholly negative. That's just not credible.

I have just demonstrated, I think, that crediting the Bible with any positive traits or influence at all is seen by many here as unacceptable.

But what is your point though? The main point of the argument is that slavery is not applicable today, and that there are many things in the bible that likewise is not applicable today. We then wonder, when we point these non-applicable things out, why these things are discarded when other things are lived by? It's the application of slavery on its whole that are used in the argument, so what does it then matter if the Jews were less harsh on their slaves than their neighbours were? There are many cultures throughout history where slavery has been less harsh than the more severe forms of human bondage, for that matter.

See my remarks on "principles."

No, I don't think you do. But you seem to think that we haven't got a single clue about the history of the bible and ancient times when we use this argument, which is not true. Granted, I am sure not an expert, but you need only basic understanding to realize that the facts in your OP is true ('true' in the sense of that it says so in the bible).

That's the second time you have accused me of assuming ignorance on the part of those who read this. I do not.

Reviewing facts known to both sides is a rather common way of making sure an argument is clear, and of making sure that both sides are on the same page. No more than that was intended here.

The facts you mention does not "kill" the use of the argument though, the way it is intended and used.

That the Bible is utterly worthless and wholly negative? Of course they do, whatever its purpose or intent.

I, personally, didn't get that impression.

Good.

I think that the criticism is not of the actual biblical slavery in itself (that we all know happened in different times, and that we can't change now anyway) but of people in our times, who uses the bible for their own agendas, and think it's the word of god. We are trying to make them see that, if it is indeed, all of it, the word of god, they can't pick and choose like that! And we are trying to make them see that if the bible is indeed a child of its time, it can't also be the word of god.

No argument here on any of that.

Pointing out slavery is only one way to reach this goal.

My point is that it's a poor way. There are many that would suit that purpose better without essentially falsifying Biblical values. The prohibitions of and sanctions on homosexuality, for instance, are much harder for Biblical literalists to deal with (at least those that don't still believe that gays should be stoned to death).

It's because it has nothing to do with why and how the argument is used, as I see it.

Again; a poor argument is a poor argument, no matter how or why it is being used. This one ought to be retired.

 

[Myriad]

Hi Charles,

I've really enjoyed reading your recent posts in this forum. I nominated the first one I read for the monthly Langauge Award (see the Community forum) and others agreed.

For me, posting in the R&P subforum tends to become time-consuming, and because of my busy schedule recently I haven't been posting much here and my opportunities to reciprocate your thoughtful posts are (and will be, for the time being) limited. However, you might enjoy reading the discussion that took place on an old thread that got into similar topics to this one, starting with this post of mine.

Respectfully,
Myriad

By the way, I really like your avatar. It reminds me of the first sig line I used on this forum, which was something like, "If you believe that God has sent you here, consider the possibility that He sent you here to learn rather than to teach." Of course that advice must apply to myself as well.

 

[cnorman18]

--

Lots of us on here acknowledge that the Bible contains useful information, that the Bible is largely concerned with issues of ritual purity, and to a lesser degree the relationship between ritual and moral purity.

There generally isn't a relationship, but you're otherwise quite right.

It's also clear (at least to me) that most Jews are capable of picking and choosing from the Bible based on modern concepts of morals and ethics and are able to understand why we no longer practice slavery.

"Most" Jews?

If I were to hold you to the standards I'm being held to, I'd be asking you to document instances of Jews that still practice slavery; but never mind. I see your point, patronizing though it may be.

What is controversial is the claim that the Bible is an inerrant source of morality.

When and where have I ever said or implied that?

It's not. It's a source of immorality as much as morality. As ancient documents go, it's above average, but no one uses it as a standard of morality anymore, not even devout believers.

I'm sorry, but that's just nonsense. The Ten Commandments, to name only one instance, are still rather widely referred to as a viable standard of morality in the present day. Often incorrectly or in an illegitimate way, I will grant you; but you are saying that no one refers back to the Bible for moral guidance at all. That simply isn't true.

Given the fact that you have chosen to post on a board that is largely defined by skeptics and non-believers, it isn't really surprising that people here want to focus on the bad parts of the Bible and the bad things that people have done (and continue to do) and justify by pointing out that God did these bad things also. If you are looking for a community of people who want to focus on the good parts of the Bible, there are many, they far outnumber boards like this one. At best you are going to get some acknowledgment that your point is valid. But the rest of us find that there are much better places to look for moral guidance.

Acknowledgment of my point's validity would be quite enough. That was all I had in mind in the first place.

For the rest, aren't you just saying that the members here don't want to hear any point of view other than their own?

This was, after all, a very limited point about a very particular criticism, and was entirely unrelated to any of the ideas to which you (and others) object to so strongly (and so rightly)--Biblical "inerrancy," the Bible being the "Word of God," its being the sole source of moral guidance, that it doesn't have any "bad parts", and so on.

Really, you'd think I had demanded that everyone suddenly become a Baptist.

 

[Hokulele]

Slavery in the ancient world was just part of the natural order of things. Some people were rich, some were poor, and some were slaves. It never even occurred to the slaves themselves that there ought not be such an institution; they merely hoped to have a good master, or to be free someday (and have slaves of their own).

I would like to tackle just this one point. There were many parts of the "natural order of things" that the writers of the bible did contest (hence the requirement for laws). Things such as eating pork, homosexuality, usury, etc. are specifically condemned. The point of using slavery as an example is to show how the writers of the bible do seem to pick things to condemn or approve that most benefit themselves, and not justice, compassion, or any other "good" quality.

 

[FireGarden]

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.htm

Goes a long way anyway.

This site was discussed on the forum some time ago. I remember there were some problems with some of their claims. But there is a community forum there, and people can join and debate... The contents of the site can be changed as a result. And I haven't really looked at it for a while.

So I'm not saying it's bad, just "buyer beware".

 

[This Guy]

If you own a Bible, and it has an index, these references are not hard to find; but if you insist--

Killing a slave is murder--Exodus 21:12. (since this passage falls in the middle of a section concerning slaves, it was assumed to apply to slaves as well; but in any case, it is explicit in 23:20.)

Injured slave goes free--Exodus 21:26.

Law on captured women, Deuteronomy 21:10-14

Sabbath rest for slaves--Deuteronomy 5:14.

Prohibition of returning an escaped slave to his master--Deuteronomy 23:16-17.

The other laws I mentioned are not explicitly given, as I thought, but are Talmudic and derived from the above. I regret that error, but I'll stand by my point.

Thank you!

While I have access to, I do not actually own a bible. I link what I'm using below.

Since your claim is concerning the bible, I'll respond to the claims you made that you say the bible supports. If you can find biblical references to the other claims, I'll consider them when you furnish the references. Again, I don't have an actual bible any more. If your claims are supported by the bible, please tell me where so we can discuss them. Your making the claims, not me!

First,

Killing a slave is murder--Exodus 21:12. (since this passage falls in the middle of a section concerning slaves, it was assumed to apply to slaves as well; but in any case, it is explicit in 23:20.)

I disagree that 21:12 applies to slaves. It clearly states "He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death." Says nothing about a servant. You are correct, I believe, in stating that 21:20 (assume that's what you meant, since 23:20 is in no way related to the topic of discussion) deals with slaves! Let's look at it!

21:20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Doesn't say how, and doesn't say it's murder, but there is an "eye for an eye... reference later that could be said to apply. But what you neglected to mention is 21:21! Strange how that works. Let's look at 21:21 shall we?

21:21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

What's that? If the slave lives a day or two after the beating, and then dies, it's all cool, because after all it is just the mans money. Kinda goes against the general theme of your claims doesn't it?

But, let's continue anyway, shall we?

Injured slave goes free--Exodus 21:26

26 And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake.

27 And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake.

I added 21:27 because it goes so well with 21:26 What they actually say is that if a man causes his servant (man or maid) to go blind in one eye, or loose a tooth, they are to be let go. Not quite as general as implied. The slave has to be injured by it's owner, and apparently only the loss of an eye or a tooth is covered. But, in a broad sense, you are correct.

Law on captured women, Deuteronomy 21:10-14

Well, you really have to go back to 21:7 to get the full meaning here. Let's look

21:

7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.

8 If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.

9 And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters.

10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.

11 And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.

12 He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.

13 And if a man lie not in wait, but God deliver him into his hand; then I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee.

14 But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die.

Really, 7-11 are the ones that pertain. 12-14 are different subjects completely.

First off 7 says it's about a man selling his daughter to be a maidservant. Obviously this indicates that not only can slaves be captured in battles/wars, but it's OK to sell your very own daughters as slaves. Yea, that shows the bible in a positive light in regard to slavery!

OK, verse 8, I have no damn idea what it means.

Verse 9 is a winner! If the buyer of the other person's daughter gives her to his son to marry (basically) the buyer has to treat her as his own daughter (which I assume means she could be subject to being sold again, but that's presumptuous of me isn't it )

Verse 10 says that if the son takes an additional wife, the food and what have you, that the slave was getting before the second marriage can not be decreased. Much as you stated.

And verse 11 puts in the "what if" to verse 9. If those things don't happen, she gets to go free.

Sabbath rest for slaves--Deuteronomy 5:14.

14 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou.

Got to agree with you on this one!

Prohibition of returning an escaped slave to his master--Deuteronomy 23:16-17.

I think you meant 15 and 16 (or our Kings Jame's are different, and I'm using this one)

15 Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee:

16 He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him.

I read this to apply to slaves from other tribes or areas, entering into a Jewish, or Israelite camp/area. I'd have to read more than I want right now, to firm up an opinion on this, so I'm gonna give you a conditional agreement here

OK, where do we stand?

You claim - in the OP

It would be more useful, I think, to consider what the Bible does have to say about slavery; and there we find that, while the institution itself is accepted, its immorality is heavily implied in the strict limitations and prohibitions imposed on slaveowners.

These restrictions were unique in the ancient world; in other cultures, slaves were mere property, and their use and abuse was no more restricted that those of a table or chair. The death of a slave, even if the result of a drunken whim, was of no account at all. If one killed the slave of another, one paid the slaveowner for the loss of his property and nothing more.

I've shown that the bible clearly states that slaves are merely a commodity (Duet. 21:21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.)

I won't accuse you of using standard fundy methods to support an agenda. I'll take you at your word, and assume you truly believe what you said. Unfortunately you made the same mistake fundies accuse us atheist of. You picked and chose your supporting verses, and ignored the others. When taken in context, I believe that for the most part, the bible does little more than put a minimum of restrictions on what can be done to a slave. Does the bible require that slaves be treated better than other cultures of the time? With exceptions (one noted by another poster above) yes. Is it really a big enough difference to support your claims? I think not.

 

[blobru]

...
These restrictions were unique in the ancient world; in other cultures, slaves were mere property, and their use and abuse was no more restricted that those of a table or chair. The death of a slave, even if the result of a drunken whim, was of no account at all. If one killed the slave of another, one paid the slaveowner for the loss of his property and nothing more.
...

[Apologies if this is a mud-and-straw-man <groan> , but] is it the biblical account of the Israelites' bondage in Egypt you're thinking of as a model for slavery in the ancient world?? If so, it is contradicted by several sources. E.g.:

- Plato's Euthyphro, a debate whether it is more 'pious' to try an Athenian slaveowner for murder or manslaughter in a case where his negligence has caused a slave's death.

- Ancient Roman custom, which permitted slaves to earn their freedom; one of their most revered philosophers even, Epictetus, being a former slave.

- A pupil of Epictetus, Arrian, writing about ancient India in an ancillary history of Alexander the Great -- observes:

This also is remarkable in India, that all Indians are free, and no Indian at all is a slave. In this the Indians agree with the Lacedaemonians. Yet the Lacedaemonians have Helots for slaves, who perform the duties of slaves; but the Indians have no slaves at all, much less is any Indian a slave.

Of course, the account of the enslavement of the Israelites in Exodus is, I’m sure you know, regarded by most historians as myth. From surviving papyri, Ancient Egypt appears to have been what we would call a feudal society; its pyramids likely erected by local labour, not captive nations under a slave-master’s whip.

ETA: this is not to deny that slaves were often treated terribly in ancient times... just not noticeably moreso outside Ancient Israel than within.

 

[cnorman18]

--

I think to show that these views were "positively revolutionary" you have to know, tell and provide references to what the laws, beliefs and acts of such other societies were. You have done none of that.

Okay. How about the Code of Hammurabi? It's the most widely noted precursor to the Mosaic Code:

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM

16. If any one receive into his house a runaway male or female slave of the court, or of a freedman, and does not bring it out at the public proclamation of the major domus, the master of the house shall be put to death.

17. If any one find runaway male or female slaves in the open country and bring them to their masters, the master of the slaves shall pay him two shekels of silver.

18.*If the slave will not give the name of the master, the finder shall bring him to the palace; a further investigation must follow, and the slave shall be returned to his master.

19.*If he hold the slaves in his house, and they are caught there, he shall be put to death.

199.*If he put out the eye of a man's slave, or break the bone of a man's slave, he shall pay one-half of its value.

205.*If the slave of a freed man strike the body of a freed man, his ear shall be cut off.

As you can see, returning a slave to his master was punishable by death, and injury to a slave resulted only in compensation being given to his master.

Other ancient law codes are similar. If one prominent reference isn't enough, feel free to find another that proves me wrong.

 

[ChristineR]

I have to say, I found your response to be hostile and distorting

"Most" Jews?

If I were to hold you to the standards I'm being held to, I'd be asking you to document instances of Jews that still practice slavery; but never mind. I see your point, patronizing though it may be.

At no point did I say that Jews still practice slavery. To my knowledge, none do, although I could be wrong.

I didn't even say that most people aren't capable of understanding that slavery is wrong.

What I did say is that not all people are capable of understanding why we no longer practice slavery. Do you not see any difference in those three claims?

There are many people who claim that the Bible is the basis of our decision not to practice slavery. I have seen nothing in the Bible to support this view.

When and where have I ever said or implied that?

Millions of people say and imply that the Bible is an inerrant source of morality. You're wondering why we non-believers are so bent on saying it isn't, and as you offer your own point of view, which appears to be quite reasonable. That doesn't negate the reality other's points of view, though.

I'm sorry, but that's just nonsense. The Ten Commandments, to name only one instance, are still rather widely referred to as a viable standard of morality in the present day. Often incorrectly or in an illegitimate way, I will grant you; but you are saying that no one refers back to the Bible for moral guidance at all. That simply isn't true.

I disagree. The Ten Commandments are a highly inadequate standard of morality and most people who refer to them distort them to fit modern standards. For example, "You shall not commit adultery" originally meant "you will not sleep with other men's wives" but did not prohibit polygamy or visiting prostitutes. "You will not bear false witness against your neighbor" originally meant that you would not swear falsely in court about other Jews, but is not taken to mean a much more general statement about honesty and integrity. And of course very few people take the ritual commandments seriously at all anymore, and if they do they put a highly symbolic interpretation on them.

Acknowledgment of my point's validity would be quite enough. That was all I had in mind in the first place.

I have no problem acknowledging your point of view.

For the rest, aren't you just saying that the members here don't want to hear any point of view other than their own?

I imagine some do, some don't.

This was, after all, a very limited point about a very particular criticism, and was entirely unrelated to any of the ideas to which you (and others) object to so strongly (and so rightly)--Biblical "inerrancy," the Bible being the "Word of God," its being the sole source of moral guidance, that it doesn't have any "bad parts", and so on.

Really, you'd think I had demanded that everyone suddenly become a Baptist.

Ah, but you are missing a key point. Lots of people are demanding that everyone become a Baptist. This is an opinionated place, where majority is in the minority everywhere else.

Perhaps a metaphor, which is a bit extreme, might help. Your country is at war with some other country. You walk into enemy territory and declare "We're not all so bad! We have some good points! You are missing some very fundamental good things about us!"

Although you are completely correct, you are still asking for trouble. That's all I'm saying.

 

[-Fran-]

This site was discussed on the forum some time ago. I remember there were some problems with some of their claims. But there is a community forum there, and people can join and debate... The contents of the site can be changed as a result. And I haven't really looked at it for a while.

So I'm not saying it's bad, just "buyer beware".

Do you have a link to that thread? I wasn't aware of this, and it sounds interesting. Myself I have only skimmed the skeptic annotated bible site so far, but it was the only place I knew of that had tried to part up the bible in "good" and "bad". It's not a study though, of course. I guess it would be a tricky to do a real study of that since what is good and what is bad is in many cases a subjective thing

 

[joobz]

In these discussions, no one blames natural selection for evolving in a way to make slavery over 'the savages' OK, no surprise around these parts.

Wow, T'ai. This is honestly, the stupidest thing I have ever seen you write.
Do you really think people substitute in "natural selection" for god?

Basically slavery was condemed and abolished and condoned by the religious and by the anti-religious alike. Im doubtful one can say that certain group was entirely responsible for it or for its abolishment or that there is some correlation.

No one is arguing whether atheists or the religious were more or less pro-slavery. It's a human made atrocity born entirely in this world and humanity is to blame for it. Thankfully, we have developed as a society to recognize the evil that it is and condemn it as such.


the problem comes from the logical failing that must be enacted when we think of god as our moral source. (An argument frequently made as proof of god)

Since the bible doesn't condemn slavery, and the bible is the word of god, then god must have condoned slavery during the time of the bible.

This has only a few resolutions, none of which is favorable from a theistic stance
1.) We are more morally advanced than god (god being eternal, must still condone slavery contradicting a benevolent god)
2.) god changed his mind, and/or was wrong (goes against his omniscience and a being of perfection.)
3.) god doesn't care enough (we are not worthy of his consideration)
4.) The bible was written by men and has nothing at all to do with god

 

[-Fran-]

What argument, specifically, are you referring to? If you're speaking of criticizing the Bible on the ground that it condones slavery, I think I've addressed that rather directly.

Whatever the reasons an argument is used, or to whomever it is directed, I think it's rather relevant to determine whether that argument is reasonable, don't you?

Every time I have seen "the bible being criticised for condoning slavery" it has been done for the purposes I have explained. And will explain again: It has not been about criticising this particular ancient people's views of slavery (which basically is what IS presented in the bible) which would be of no use, but the fact that the bible does not talk against slavery has been used to show that it IS an ancient people talking, NOT a god that would know better. That is what the criticism is about. How does it make the argument unreasonable?

You keep talking as if this is not how the argument/criticism against slavery in the bible is used. You seem to think that people are criticising the bible in itself, which is of no use since it is a book, written by people and as such viewed in the context it was written. It’s not like we can find the author and demand he explain himself, nor the people who once enslaved people around them. We can only criticise the actual use of the book, and the argument about slavery is a part of that.

The criticism, and the way it is used in this argument is therefore not dependant on the level of severity of the slavery in question. And that’s basically your only point here, that the slavery described in the bible was unusually mild for its times (which can be argued against too).

I think that is a bit exaggerated, as well.

Fair enough.

Does that necessarily follow? Are ALL ancient documents to be discarded, or only those with a religious bent? Do we toss out Aristotle, too?

We do not use Aristotle today as a scientific authority! All ancient documents are to be discarded in those areas where they do no longer apply. The bible is historically and literary interesting, but that is all.

And you would no doubt find me in agreement with you, more often than not.

I think so too. I did not perceive you as a biblical apologetic of that kind.

I never said it was.

Fair enough.

Because, while it is not the only source of ethical teachings, it is a source. The fashion around here seems to be to ignore it entirely and deride it as wholly negative. That's just not credible.

Now, we did not say that.

Me personally I am rather neutral about what I think and feel about the bible in itself. I find it interesting in many ways. I don’t think it is “good” or “evil” in itself, no books are, they are objects! I think though that it is completely useless for the purposes that many religious people think it is good for.

I have just demonstrated, I think, that crediting the Bible with any positive traits or influence at all is seen by many here as unacceptable.

I don’t think that’s the case.

That's the second time you have accused me of assuming ignorance on the part of those who read this. I do not.

Reviewing facts known to both sides is a rather common way of making sure an argument is clear, and of making sure that both sides are on the same page. No more than that was intended here.

I apologize if I misunderstood you here, but that really is how it read to me.

That the Bible is utterly worthless and wholly negative? Of course they do, whatever its purpose or intent.

That is not what the criticism/argument is about, so, no it does not at all.

No argument here on any of that.

Good

My point is that it's a poor way.

That may be, but I don’t think you have showed that it is with what you stated in your OP.

There are many that would suit that purpose better without essentially falsifying Biblical values.

How is it falsifying biblical values?

The prohibitions of and sanctions on homosexuality, for instance, are much harder for Biblical literalists to deal with (at least those that don't still believe that gays should be stoned to death).

That is being addressed as well.

Again; a poor argument is a poor argument, no matter how or why it is being used. This one ought to be retired.

I do not think that you have managed to show that it is such a poor argument. Even so, you were not really addressing if it is a useful argument (for its purpose) or not in your OP, but you went out (in your OP) to prove that it is wrong in the first place, as you were saying that the bible’s view of slavery isn’t as severe as the criticism of the bible says it is. I’m saying that this criticism isn’t addressing the severity at all, since it doesn’t matter for the use of the criticism/argument.