Split thread: Does the Bible speak out against slavery?

ceo_esq said:
The Bible doesn't really seem to present those as exceptions to the Golden Rule. Interpretations of Mt 10:34-39 and Mt 11:20 as an exhortation to Christians to violent conduct are generally implausible. Child-killing episodes in the OT may set a bad contrary example, but unless you can point to one of them that incorporates an express rule of conduct for human beings to the effect that we should generally take the initiative to kill our enemies' children (which presumably, in light of the NT, would no longer be in effect anyway under the theological equivalent of the doctrine of implied repeal), then you're still left with an uphill climb.
Those passages might suggest hypocrisy on God's part, of course, but I think a far easier project to argue around the child-killing passages than it is to argue around the anti-child-killing passages, which are far more direct and unambiguous. Moreover, the anti-child-killing ones tend to be phrased in the imperative.
Click to expand...
If you hold that the golden rule doesn't apply to everyone, then it's a simple deduction. Jesus gives some explanation of this in the parable of seeds. If you take the belief that the rocky, thorny ground people are not the equal in their acceptance of god, why would they be equal to the golden rule?
Especailly when Jesus clearly stated that he who puts him least on earth, jesus will call him least in heaven.

This isn't an stretch of logic, but a completely straight forward result from the text.

I very much like your interpretations of the text and hope more christians would adopt them, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

ceo_esq said:
Again, if you can think of a way it would be possible to reconcile the Golden Rule (and the other biblical concepts I mentioned a while back) with slavery, then be my guest. Consider two alternatives. Alternative #1: Christ was opposed to slavery, but either he passed up opportunities to spell out that slavery was inconsistent with his moral system, or else his biographers did not record them. Alternative #2: Christ was opposed to violations of the Golden Rule and related precepts, but he was not opposed to slavery. Alternative #1, you may say, seems improbable - perhaps very improbable. Yet Alternative #2, many have argued, is simply impossible, unless perhaps JC was profoundly insane. Remember how Sherlock Holmes said "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"?
Click to expand...
To me the most plausible alternative is the one where we aknowledge that the bible is written by multiple people over multiple eras. As such, contradictions aren't unexpected.

As to alternative 2, it's a simply issue of being seperate but equal.



ceo_esq said:
That's actually not the case; I addressed why in this post from another thread.
Click to expand...
But in most cases, they were not free to leave. The bible was use to prop up men (kings and lords) above other men.


ceo_esq said:
I completely agree with you; well put joobz.
Click to expand...
A blind squirrel and his nuts, you know.
 
joobz said:
If you hold that the golden rule doesn't apply to everyone, then it's a simple deduction.
Click to expand...

There's the rub. It's only simple if you assume away the most difficult part to justify textually (that the Golden Rule isn't supposed to apply to everyone). More on this below.


joobz said:
Jesus gives some explanation of this in the parable of seeds. If you take the belief that the rocky, thorny ground people are not the equal in their acceptance of god, why would they be equal to the golden rule?
Especailly when Jesus clearly stated that he who puts him least on earth, jesus will call him least in heaven.

This isn't an stretch of logic, but a completely straight forward result from the text.
Click to expand...

I think you're glossing over real problem with that argument, which is that it relies on a premise (that the Golden Rule wasn't intended to apply to all people) which the text seems to indicate is false.

We’re told “if you regard one person more than another, you commit sin” and that we must be like God who is not a “respecter of persons” (i.e. one who discriminates or takes account of who another person is when treating them). Not to mention (again) the parable of the Good Samaritan, which Jesus offered when bluntly asked to whom the Golden Rule does or doesn’t apply – and which makes no sense at all if the real answer was “not everyone”. Then we have the Sermon on the Mount:

Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
Click to expand...


I believe you already conceded that the Golden Rule and related teachings are incompatible with slavery, so the only loophole would be if they didn't apply to a particular individual or class. Jesus gave a fair number of specific examples of the kinds of people to whom it should apply, so let's aggregate them for review (in no particular order): good people, evil people, enemies, friends, the just, the unjust, relatives, strangers/foreigners, people who share your religion, people who don't share your religion, people in your ethnic group, people in other ethnic groups, etc. (this is not necessarily exhaustive) ... Which raises the question: if I have to apply the Golden Rule to all those folks, whom am I supposed to be able to enslave?


joobz said:
I very much like your interpretations of the text and hope more christians would adopt them, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
Click to expand...

Thank you joobz. I wish I could take more credit, but I think these are fairly conventional interpretations.


joobz said:
To me the most plausible alternative is the one where we aknowledge that the bible is written by multiple people over multiple eras. As such, contradictions aren't unexpected.
Click to expand...

True enough.


joobz said:
As to alternative 2, it's a simply issue of being seperate but equal.
Click to expand...

It would be interesting to know if there's any historical system of slavery that actually qualified as "separate but equal". Would we even recognize it as slavery?


joobz said:
A blind squirrel and his nuts, you know.
Click to expand...

:D
 
Last edited:
ceo_esq said:
There's the rub. It's only simple if you assume away the most difficult part to justify textually (that the Golden Rule isn't supposed to apply to everyone). More on this below.

I think you're glossing over real problem with that argument, which is that it relies on a premise (that the Golden Rule wasn't intended to apply to all people) which the text seems to indicate is false.

We’re told “if you regard one person more than another, you commit sin” and that we must be like God who is not a “respecter of persons” (i.e. one who discriminates or takes account of who another person is when treating them). Not to mention (again) the parable of the Good Samaritan, which Jesus offered when bluntly asked to whom the Golden Rule does or doesn’t apply – and which makes no sense at all if the real answer was “not everyone”. Then we have the Sermon on the Mount:
Click to expand...


I am going to nitpick just a bit, and say that this does not invalidate the point -Fran- and Joobz were making, in that it still assumes the reader knows what is meant by people. Although the Sermon on the Mount mentions just and unjust, good and evil, it is still talking about those considered persons. As a comparison, many eastern philosophies, including Buddhism and Taoism, make it explicitly clear that all life is valuable and in a sense equal. For example, the following passage is from Lieh Tzu as a response to the comment, "How kind Heaven is to humanity."

Lieh Tzu said:
All life is born in the same way that we are and we are all of the same kind. Our species is not nobler than another; it is simply that the strongest and cleverest rule over the weaker and more stupid. Things eat each other and are eaten, but were not bred for this. To be sure, we take the things which we eat and consume them, but you cannot claim that Heaven made them in the first place just to eat.
Click to expand...

Contrast this with the beginning of Genesis.

Genesis 1:26-30 said:
Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

And God said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food.

"Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food"; and it was so.
Click to expand...


So for the Hebrews, it was self-evident that everything was placed on the earth to serve mankind and did not need to be questioned, whereas the Chinese philosophers saw that as another observation to be examined more closely. So when Jesus claims that one should love both their neighbor and their enemy, that is still not necessarily all inclusive in a modern sense, as we cannot know exactly what he is excluding without comparing it to another thought system.

I do agree completely that it should be interpreted in the modern sense, but not that it must. Much the way the US Constitution has been shown to be less inclusive and corrected, so too should the bible, and some people will always have a problem with that. I really wish Christians would adopt an amendment system for the New Testament. :(
 
Last edited:
Doc sez: :Injuring or killing slaves was punishable - up to death of the offending party."

Chapter and verse, please.

A man could beat his slave, but not beat him or her to death. If he did beat a slave to death, he would be 'punished'.

See Exodus 21:

20 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished,
21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property

And
7 "If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do.
--------------
The fact that someone was a slave seems to have demoted him or her from personhood to property.

And Jesus condoned slavery.

He condoned all the O.T. rules by the following blanket statement:

Matthew 5:17-18 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
 
Last edited:
Why are all DOC's old threads getting resurrected?

The things are harder to nail down than Jesus!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom