The bible condones slavery

jeremyp said:
Let's say the Hebrew god really did care about not choosing a day of the week that would be named after a pagan god or other object of worship in a language that wouldn't be invented for a thousand years or so, which day of the week could he have chosen?
Click to expand...
Let's say he was a real god. Would we then name any day of the week after a pagan god or other object of worship?
 
Tricky said:
I don't really have a problem with the explanation, "things were different back then". It's true. Things were different back then. I don't hate my own country because they once allowed slavery.

But what I want to hear Christians admit is that because the world has changed so much, the Bible is no longer a suitable source for a moral code. Things have changed so much that the things that people used to take for granted (like slavery, child abuse, genocide, torture) no longer have a place in our society. So stop telling us that this book, which in various places advocates all of these things, is something modern humans should live by. It ain't.
Click to expand...

The problem, and the believers know this, is that once you start saying that the bible is partly wrong, it's impossible to conclusively explain how to determine what's wrong and what's still a-ok. So they stick to the inerrancy side.

The only tenable opinion about the bible is that it is a work of fiction that may have some historical basis in some books.
 
Belz... said:
The only tenable opinion about the bible is that it is a work of fiction that may have some historical basis in some books.
Click to expand...

I think of it as an anthopological textbook, handy in understanding early Jewish thought and invaluable for seeing which Mesopotamian concepts were universally popular
;)
 
Bram Kaandorp said:
Would such a god even ALLOW us to use the names of ancient gods for the days of the week?
Click to expand...

Which is why the Quakers referred to them by numbers--and maybe still do, don't know. I've been reading 19th century Quaker letters recently and it's all "first day," "first month," etc. so all those other random gods wouldn't get credit.
 
Jodie said:
This seems to be a well written article from the Christian perspective that explains some of the rationale. I'm not familiar with the history of the area during biblical times to say whether this is accurate nor do I necessarily agree with everything, but at least it has some interesting biblical points to debate that seem contradictory.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=1587

Here is some information on Jewish laws regarding slavery:

http://http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/305549/jewish/Torah-Slavery-and-the-Jews.htm

Here are some Roman laws pertaining to slavery:

https://facultystaff.richmond.edu/~wstevens/history331texts/slavery.html

Maybe it will put this into some kind of perspective regardless of personal belief. Marduk could probably do a better job in describing what society was like back then, I've yet to read the material I want to research regarding the surrounding tribes in the area. I'll have to wait to delve into this issue until I get a better understanding of who lived where, when, and how.
Click to expand...
The first link is a pathetic defense of the Bible.

"Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery."

Jesus’ point was crystal clear—some things permitted in the Old Testament did not necessarily represent the ideal. Due to the hardness of ancient Israel’s heart, God tolerated (and regulated) some things under the Old Law that He did not endorse. As He did so, however, He progressively revealed His divine will to mankind, clarifying that will more fully through Christ.
Click to expand...
Not only is this appalling for suggesting that it is immoral for a woman to divorce a man who physically and psychologically abuses her, but does not cheat on her, and that it is immoral for her to later marry a kind man who treats her with love and respect, but it turns the all-powerful god of Abraham into a wimp who hasn't the authority to to establish his justice. It's like saying "Child abuse is wrong, but I can't stop people from beating their kids. So I'll tolerate and regulate child abuse even though I don't personally endorse it. Even though I'm all powerful, and can command my people not to eat shellfish or wear cloth of mixed fibers, I'll have to gradually reveal to my people that child abuse is wrong over the course of centuries".

Often, those who attack the Bible skirt the real crux of the slavery issue. They point to verses in the Old Testament that offer a particular regulation for slavery. From there, they proceed to argue that the Bible is a vile book that does not condemn, but actually condones slavery. And, they argue, since all slavery is morally wrong, the Bible must not be the product of a loving God.
Click to expand...
What a load of crap. Talk about skirting the real crux of the slavery issue. The author of this article hasn't even the courage to quote the verses to which he refers.
Let's look at one:

Exodus 21:7-11 When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed; he shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt unfairly with her. If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish the food, clothing, or marital rights of the first wife. And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out without debt, without payment of money.
Click to expand...

The author is attempting to defend biblical slavery by portraying it only as a punishment for criminal activity or as an alternative to killing POWs. But the reality of the situation is revealed by the above verses. It clearly codifies the selling of one's own daughter as a slave, and it says that she shall have no right to be freed after seven years (actually a long time to people who were lucky to live into their thirties) as the male Hebrew slaves were, but that she would be a slave for all her life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom