Remember the time Paul returned a runaway slave to his master, and he told the master that it's just wrong to own a human being, and he should free the slave because it's ungodly for one human being to straight up own another? Me neither. I remember the part where Paul tells the master to be super nice to the slave because they're both Christians now. But nothing about freeing the slave. Nothing about freeing any slaves, Christian or non Christian. There is therefore then no condemnation of slavery for those who are in Christ Jesus.
Say, that's New Testament, isn't it? Slavery was not abolished in the New Testament either? Wow. That Yahweh is something else. BBans people with crushed testicles from his presence, but slave owners are good to go.
Thank goodness Jesus brought an end to the New Testament! Wait, what?
Ephesians 6:5-9: "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.
That word "servants"? Doulos. Bondslave. Not an employee. A slave. Yahweh never banned slavery. Not even in the New Testament. You are more moral than Yahweh, thank goodness.
At least Yahweh tells slave masters to be nice to their slaves. Hey, you know what would be really nice? Not owning people. Not owning people would be really nice.
Old Testament morality: it's okay to beat your slaves, as long as you don't kill them.
New Testament: try to be a little nicer to your Christian slaves.
Moral people: what's say we just don't own people?
You are more moral than Yahweh. Before and after Jesus. He just never got around to saying slavery was inherently immoral. We all know that today, but not from Yahweh. We know it because we are more moral than Yahweh. Even New Testament Yahweh. Even EPHESIANS Yahweh.
If we are going to discuss whether Yahweh is moral, the Old Testament law is important BECAUSE HE AUTHORED IT.
Noting the role of Jesus Christ as "suspending" the law is all well and good, but it does not address the fact that God wrote the Old Testament law in the first place.
Saying that Israel received the law because Israel wanted a king ignores two facts. One: that the Old Testament law was commanded by Yahweh CENTURIES before there was a king in Israel. Two: Any barbaric laws that WERE put in place by men are not factors in this discussion.
The only question this thread is concerned with is God's morality.
Is anyone trying to say that God did not write the Old Testament law? I would agree with you COMPLETELY! But that's not what the Bible says. The Bible gives God the credit for commanding some laws that we recognize today as being completely immoral.
This thread is not about laws that are not attributed to God's command. Such laws are off topic.
This thread is not about people who followed the law to the letter, nor is it about people who failed to follow the law. Those subjects are off topic. If you want to discuss them, start another thread. But don't bury THIS thread in a mountain of irrelevant information.
This thread isn't even about good laws. We would expect good laws now and then from any man made set of laws. So what? A good law here and a good law there does nothing, not one thing, to detract from the fact that God imposed the death penalty for petty reasons, making you more moral than God. God regulated rather than abolished slavery. That makes you more moral than God. God's Laws on rape were utterly unfair to women. That makes you more moral than God.
Many of you reading this are unaware that you really are more moral than God. And it's not just the Old Testament law. The New Testament refers to the law as holy just and good. The new testament does nothing to correct the old testament's most basic error on slavery.
This thread is about God's morality. If you want to start a thread that's a survey of the Old Testament, have at it. Somewhere else. Not on this thread.
It happens often, and it happened in this thread as well (right at the beginning).
Whenever a critic accurately cites God's law as evidence that God is immoral, the defense frequently seems to be, "well, it was a different time and a different culture."
I don't think that argument washes, for a lot of reasons. I have yet to hear a compelling case for why that argument should be accepted. Allow me to explain my position:
God is GOD. I mean, He's GOD! He is omnipotent. And He has just shown His power and might to the Israelites in some pretty incredible ways. So he brings them out of Egypt and into the wilderness, and he hands them HIS law.
So far, I'm not seeing ANY room for the intrusion of the hard-heartedness of the Israelites, unless God is being pre-emptive here, which I suppose is his right. But making concessions for hard-heartedness (for example, allowing divorce or making it relatively easy) is not the same as allowing EVIL because the Israelites could not handle good. That is preposterous. I mean, if he's going to make concessions for that, He might as well not give His law. "Well, these folks can't really handle not owning another human being, so I'll just regulate human being ownership and forbid them from killing their slaves. Hurting is okay, I guess, as long as the slave isn't hurt for too long. BUT NO SHELLFISH! And if you work on Saturday, you're DEAD!"
This is not rational behavior from a North Korean dictator, much less from someone who embodies and defines "objective" morality.
Second-guessing God is a HUGE sin. I know, because often when I discuss this with people, I am accused of second-guessing God. Funny that these same people have no compulsion whatsoever when it comes to second-guessing Allah. But then, Allah is obviously a made up God, which we know because when we scrutinize his word, it is filled with barbaric admonitions and declarations we know to be untrue. Not like the Bible at all (why, yes, I am being sarcastic! And props to you for noticing).
My sense is, if God were really opposed to slavery, He would have just banned it, like he banned shellfish and working on Saturday. So he must not be opposed to slavery. (But... but... but...) But NOTHING! I'm supposed to be impressed that he banned it later? I'm not, for two reasons. First, he allowed it initially, and that is morally unacceptable. Second, he never banned it. Old Testament and New, God never banned slavery. The best you can say, on a good day, is that he laid out a moral case against it. But it never became important enough to him that he felt compelled to say, "You know what, don't do that. Period. Don't own people. Ever."
The fact that Yahweh got slavery wrong -- slavery is one of the easiest moral questions man has ever faced. Seriously. It's not hard at all. Thou shalt not own people. Yahweh came down on the wrong side of it, regulating it instead of banning it (when you look at the list of things he banned on punishment of death, the absence of slave-owning on that list becomes startling).
Now, I know what some of you are thinking. If I don't believe in God, who am I to declare God's permission of slavery to be morally unacceptable? I want you to think about that question, long and hard, and about what it imlpies.
The question implies that I am wrong, by God's objective standard of morality, to declare slavery unacceptable. The question implies that slavery is acceptable.
And if THAT's what you think, then I shudder at what else you would permit in God's name.
If it's NOT what you think, then you, too, are more moral than Yahweh.
If you were God, giving your law to your chosen people, and your chosen people wanted to keep slaves, would you regulate slavery, or would you tell your chosen people: "No. Under no circumstances is one human being allowed to own another. I forbid it. End of discussion. You do it, and you will make Me very angry, and you wouldn't like Me when I'm angry"?
God chose to regulate slavery. If I'm right, you would have abolished it, no questions asked. That makes you more moral than God, doesn't it? I mean, can regulating slavery be MORE moral than abolishing it, if morality is absolute and objective?
If you were God and you gave your law to your chosen people, and one of your laws was not to work on a particular day, what would your punishment be for that infraction? Would you require that the person not eat until the next sunset? Or would you stone him with stones until he dies?
God chose to stone the poor sticker-picker-upper. If I'm right, you would not have done it. That makes you more moral than God, doesn't it? I mean, can the death penalty for the most minor offense imaginable (seriously, who, other than God's ego, is hurt when a man picks up firewood on a Saturday?) be MORE moral than a token "punishment" with no long-lasting harm other than discomfort and inconvenience?
[To answer a point made on an unrelated thread, these questions do not entail atheist presuppositions. They presume that the God of the Old Testament is a real being who really communicated His will, and they evaluate His law according to our current moral values. So I truly do invite discussions that tackle these difficult questions. Dodging these questions by pointing out irrelevant information is not on topic and therefore not welcome -- NO MATTER WHO DOES IT. God banned usury. Well, that's wonderful, and it's certainly a good thing. But does it address the fact that he failed to abolish slavery and that he instituted a punishment for Sabbath-breaking that even ISIS members would say is a little on the harsh side? No. It's a dodge. Dodges are off topic].
[To answer a point made on an unrelated thread, these questions do not entail atheist presuppositions. They presume that the God of the Old Testament is a real being who really communicated His will, and they evaluate His law according to our current moral values. So I truly do invite discussions that tackle these difficult questions. Dodging these questions by pointing out irrelevant information is not on topic and therefore not welcome -- NO MATTER WHO DOES IT. God banned usury. Well, that's wonderful, and it's certainly a good thing. But does it address the fact that he failed to abolish slavery and that he instituted a punishment for Sabbath-breaking that even ISIS members would say is a little on the harsh side? No. It's a dodge. Dodges are off topic].
I can understand where you are coming from Raf. However, if you honestly are inviting a discussion on these topics, could you be clear on what you consider is dodging. Because, to myself, you make it sound very subjective. Is it dodging to point out true facts if they are about the subject but not necessarily answering your questions? It's hard to define terms, set the stage, etc, if instead everything must be said in one fell swoop..
There's a number of things that would need to be discussed alongside these questions to discuss these fully. Issues with language (The original Hebrew language being lost when the Jews went into exile), issues with culture (the western thought of slavery is not the same in the eastern culture), bridging the 3000+ years gap is not as easy as just reading a sentence and relating it to anything today, actually speaking it is impossible to go back 3000+ years and know for certain, which opens the door for subjectivity even when one attempts to be objective.
When I mention culture, I'm not talking about it being treated differently and given a pass, but rather understanding their way of life. Because to the eastern mindset, what we call "employees" today is barbaric to what they called ebed("slaves") in the Tanakh (It's demeaning to many Jews to call it the Old Testament).
It's really not hard. In my posts, I'm laying out specific differences between morality as we understand it today and Yahweh's laws and behavior as exhibited in his law. My premise is that if morality is both objective and absolute, and God is the source of that objective, absolute morality, then his law should be absolutely and objectively moral. In all points. So instances in which his law appears to not be moral according to our standards MUST be addressed. Are our standards wrong? Are we misunderstanding the scriptures?
Now be careful. You talked about the eastern mindset considering the concept of an "employee" barbaric. The burden is now on you to demonstrate not just that they felt this way, but that they were correct to do so. That is, if you're equating the eastern mindset with God's will. Otherwise, we're off topic again. I'm not asking if you are more moral than Bronze Age Israelites. I'm asking if you are more moral than the God they worshipped.
Personally, I don't see how you can come up with a definition of slavery that is BOTH Biblically accurate and morally defensible. The Bible doesn't just employ the word. It establishes the meaning. And God never abolished the institution. As slavery is defined and regulated in the Bible, I submit YOU would have abolished it. God didn't. Why?
I should add that an examination of God's morality is not limited to the law. It can and should also include his behavior before the law was given and after.
I'll give you some examples of on topic v. off topic.
"Raf, you misunderstand what slavery was 3000 years ago v. what it was 300 years ago. Here's a list of differences that account for why God never banned it in the Torah." That would be completely on topic. It directly addresses the issue raised in the thread topic and in the opening/subsequent posts.
"I think the Bible contains God's word but not that it IS God's word. As such, some of the things that made it into the law are a better reflection of the harshness of man than they are of the so-called immorality of God." That would be completely on topic. It directly addresses the thread topic and the opening/subsequent posts.
"God banned murder. So He got some things right. You're just cherry-picking the bad things." Actually, such a comment would be just cherry picking the good things. The comment is on the line, at best. The thread topic is not "Can't God do anything right?" If it were, a list of things that underscore his morality would be on topic. God banned murder. God banned usury. God doesn't like potty mouths or cheating on your wife. Sure, bring them up, but why? Do they address the thread topic? No, because they are not really in dispute.
Remember, the thread topic is "Are YOU more moral than Yahweh?" It is not "Are all people more moral than Yahweh?" Why is that distinction important? Because we're not comparing Yahweh's stand on slavery to Simon Legree's. We're comparing it to yours. We're not comparing Yahweh's stand on usury to Vinnie the Fingerbreaker's. We're comparing it to yours. So unless you approve of murder, usury, adultery, and fould language, invoking Yahweh's stand on those issues does not actually contribute to the discussion.
"Other cultures at the time were worse." Off topic. The question is not "Were other cultures at the time more moral than Yahweh?"
"Raf, you need to read the scripture with open eyes. It's clear you can't do that anymore because you've closed your eyes to the things of God and are now influenced by demons." :offtopic:/>/> Not to mention ad hominem and deeply offensive. You're wasting your breath. And after what happened on this thread before, I'm not going to sit by while BS like that is thrown at me again, like I did last time. It will be reported and it will be dealt with instantly. I let things get out of hand by responding to them instead of reporting them. It will not happen again.
Show me what you see with your open eyes and open heart.
I should add that an examination of God's morality is not limited to the law. It can and should also include his behavior before the law was given and after.
I'll give you some examples of on topic v. off topic.
I think those examples give enough guidance and I'm sure I can stay within those bounds. Although I was very tempted to give the ol' "Raf, you need to read the scripture with open eyes. It's clear you can't do that anymore because you've closed your eyes to the things of God and are now influenced by demons.", but I will refrain. :P I never bought into TWI's view of demons and seeing them everywhere, but let me know if you see spiders coming out of my nose!
I think it also best while the overall topic is the morality of Yahweh, that we stick to a certain sub topic before moving on, else we could easily get lost in all the different sentences in the Tanakh that seem to wave the immoral flag.
One thing that I believe is important when speaking of the Tanakh is understanding what the "torah" is and what it is not. The word torah does not mean nor ever did mean "law" as it is translated today.
Wikipedia: The word "Torah" in Hebrew is derived from the root ירה, which in the hif'il conjugation means "to guide/teach" (cf. Lev 10:11). The meaning of the word is therefore "teaching", "doctrine", or "instruction"; the commonly accepted "law" gives a wrong impression. Other translational contexts in the English language include custom, theory, guidance, or system.
To take the sum of the "teachings"(torahs) in the Tanakh and then to try to connect that to what a nation would consider it's "laws" would be incorrect. And the continual translation of the word as "law" throughout has added much misunderstanding. They are however, considered God's guidance and teachings for His people, therefore we can use them to help evaluate morality. The word is sometimes used to denote other things (groups of texts, etc) but when I use the word at this time, I will be using it in it's most usual Biblical sense of God's guidance/teaching for His people.
Also to note is that while I do consider myself a Christian, I do not hold to fundamental views that the scriptures are a perfect record. I believe they contain men's words that may be inspired by God as well as words that they received dircetly from God and wrote, so not everything is "theopneustos" (That verse is sadly mistranslated IMHO).
Now be careful. You talked about the eastern mindset considering the concept of an "employee" barbaric. The burden is now on you to demonstrate not just that they felt this way, but that they were correct to do so.
Personally, I don't see how you can come up with a definition of slavery that is BOTH Biblically accurate and morally defensible. The Bible doesn't just employ the word. It establishes the meaning. And God never abolished the institution. As slavery is defined and regulated in the Bible, I submit YOU would have abolished it. God didn't. Why?
While I hear your caution, I am unequivocally stating that the "slavery" mentioned in the Tanakh is NOT something I would abolish. And while that might bring gasps, and maybe I am walking into a minefield without recognizing all the mines, this is what I believe, and I see no reason to hide from my belief, even if it be incorrect. What I have read, and what I know today, I do not see a problem with what the Tanakh describes. But that doesn't mean I know the entire spectrum either, I am not all-knowing. So let us discuss this, and maybe I have missed something!
I think for starters, one must understand that the word used for "slaves" in the Tanakh [ebed/abad] does not equate to what most Greco-Roman/Western thinkers mean when speaking of "slaves". It is a very complex and misunderstood subject I believe, but one worth delving into. I will leave with some quotes, but make no mistake, I am discussing here Yahweh's handling of [ebed/abad] in the Tanakh not other cultures.
Encyclopedia of Cultural Anthropology: Scholars do not agree on a definition of "slavery." The term has been used at various times for a wide range of institutions, including plantation slavery, forced labor, the drudgery of factories and sweatshops, child labor, semivoluntary prostitution, bride-price marriage, child adoption for payment, and paid-for surrogate motherhood. Somewhere within this range, the literal meaning of "slavery" shifts into metaphorical meaning, but it is not entirely clear at what point. A similar problem arises when we look at other cultures. The reason is that the term "Slavery" is evocative rather than analytical, calling to mind a loose bundle of diagnostic features. These features are mainly derived from the most recent direct Western experience with slavery, that of the southern United States, the Caribbean, and Latin America. The present Western image of slavery has been haphazardly constructed out of the representations of that experience in nineteenth-century abolitionist literature, and later novels, textbooks, and films...From a global cross-cultural and historical perspective, however, New World slavery was a unique conjunction of features...In brief, most varieties of slavery did not exhibit the three elements that were dominant in the New World: slaves as property and commodities; their use exclusively as labor; and their lack of freedom...
A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law: ...Referring to 'slaves in the strict sense,' apparently referring to chattel slaves such as those of classical antiquity. This characterization may have been valid for house slaves whose master could treat them as he wished when they were at fault, but it is less suitable when they were capable of owning property and could pay betrothal money or fines. The meaning 'servant' seems more appropriate, or perhaps the designation 'semi-free'. It comprises every person who is subject to orders or dependent on another but nonetheless has a certain independence within his own sphere of active.
Freedom in the ancient Near East was a relative, not an absolute state, as the ambiguity of the term for "slave" in all the region's languages illustrates. "Slave" could be used to refer to a subordinate in the social ladder. Thus the subjects of a king were called his "slaves," even though they were free citizens. The king himself, if a vassal, was the "slave" of his emperor; kings, emperors, and commoners alike were "slaves" of the gods. Even a social inferior, when addressing a social superior, referred to himself out of politeness as "your slave." There were, moreover, a plethora of servile conditions that were not regarded as slavery, such as son, daughter, wife, serf, or human pledge.
Sticking to one subtopic at a time seems reasonable to me. And slavery seems as good a place to start as any. I would add that I am VERY interested in hearing what you have to say on the subject. What you've posted so far requires more time than I have at the moment, but I promise not to ignore it.
T&O, were you done making your point, or do you have more to share?
Because I have oodles, but I want to wait my turn.
I do have more to share... However, nothing is nicely packaged, or maybe even 100% ready.. I guess I envisioned more of an open discussion rather than a your turn/my turn debate style.. Granted, I'm sure we will both have questions for one another at times which will then lead to waiting, but at this early stage, I'd say if you have something to share, and your ready to disperse the info, please do so. If it is on something I've already mentioned great, but doesn't have to be.
My next post, I hope to dig a little deeper into the meaning of the word [ebed/abad] from a Hebrew perspective. Since the language itself is a very concrete language with little room for abstract thought. So we should be able to get a better picture from that. I haven't a clue what I'll find. But my current thoughts places the Hebrew concept of the words more around what I mentioned in the previous post, that it refers more to a servant/employee role rather than what today would be thought of slavery in the sense of the 3 points already mentioned, "slaves as property and commodities; their use exclusively as labor; and their lack of freedom". While we all to some extent are commodities that our employers and/or governments use to their advantage, used as labor, and have varying degrees of freedom that they(employers and governments) afford us, the difference lies in that we have some say in the matter to a certain degree to which slaves had close to none (in which I refer to slaves here as those from the American south, not the ebed/abad of the Tanakh). It does come down to degrees. And while I realize the "political" forum was closed down, this subject "may" lead into some very political thoughts and maybe even controversy there, so we may want to be careful that we stay according to what the site administrators will support.
In saying that, it may be Monday before I have time to post again. My weekends are usually family time. But Monday, ebed/abad, and maybe answering whatever questions you might have.
I think I'll wait until you review the scriptures, weigh and (if I may be so bold) reconsider what you're saying. Your initial gasp-eliciting comment came with a humble and open-hearted caveat that I'm sure, if you follow through on it, will have you revoking your "I wouldn't abolish it" position in short order.
Proposal: instead of calling it slavery and making comparisons to the instutution we all know and condemn, let's call it "ebeddery" and deal with it on its own terms. Because the issue is not really a comparison of Biblical slavery (ebeddery) and 18/19th century slavery. The issue is whether ebeddery is moral, on its own terms.
You have stated that ebeddery is not something you would abolish. I submit that if you analyzed ebeddery on its own terms, you would change your mind about that. You have to. Any moral person would.
I would like to see you arrive at an honest conclusion using the Bible to define its own terms, laws, rules, permissions, etc. The less I say, the better.
Proposal: instead of calling it slavery and making comparisons to the instutution we all know and condemn, let's call it "ebeddery" and deal with it on its own terms. Because the issue is not really a comparison of Biblical slavery (ebeddery) and 18/19th century slavery. The issue is whether ebeddery is moral, on its own terms.
That's fine if we don't call it slavery, since it doesn't relate well to what most consider as such. However, the issue it not "whether ebeddery is moral, on it's own terms", but rather what Yahweh allows(disallows) is more/less moral. Since this is about Yahweh not other's morals.
I did a number of searches to try and decipher the root of ebed, but unfortunately, everyone has this three letter word as the root itself (although 2 letter roots exist), which makes it a bit more difficult in deciphering. The 3 letters that nake up this word, ayin(to see) - bet(house/family) - dalet (door). There are a number of possibilities here, and no one had a definitive concrete understanding from the ancient language. So I'll share a couple possibilities. The dalet(door) is a picture of a cloth hanging down and sometimes symbolized the poor/sick. In this sense, the servant(ebed) is the poor one seen in a family/household. Another, is that the status of a servant is always in relation to whom he served, and whom you served is considered your family. Thus being a servant is seen as a doorway to a family and a higher status. If you were a servant of a king, just because you were his servant, your actual family "status" was well above most common freemen.
Normally one could look at other wprds made from the root, but I can't be certain here that "ayin/bet" is the root. But it does seem to have some coorelation looking at a couple of these. One of them is the word for a "pledge" (ayin-bet-thet) from which comes the word to "borrow". But the pledge is given in return for securing something, like for securing a loan. Both words have the underlining meaning of an exchange. The first one with a view towards gaining something. And it's that thought, that another similar word with the same (ayin-bet-resh) meaning a crossing. That is to cross from one side to gain access to the other. And while the grass may not be greener, the underlying thought is that it is a journey to get somewhere better.
So with all that, while I can't 100% be certain, it looks like the focus of ebedis not so much the work or labor, but rather the focus, and that being the way(door) to access something. And I think we can all see that with any type of employment, usually people work for the purpose of gaining a wage and thus advancing themselves.
I'm not sure how much profit we could get from actually looking at all the different verses that show the complexity of this word, since it is used everywhere from those who just worship gods (the word worship being ebed), to those who take care (serve) of their brother/sisters. It is used of the most basic of words for any type of work performed by a person as well as used of those who are in a servant/master type relationship, to those called a "bondsman/woman" who desired to continue to serve their master even after their appointed time (although the Jewish midrash says even this time is limited as they must be set free at the jubilee). However, it is not used for those forced into labor with the exception of those who stole and by edict of the courts must work to repay what they stole at which time they are free.
I think what might be best to get into next is to get into what Yahweh is noted as specifically saying in the Tanakh to get an understanding of His ways.
Feel free to chime in here, I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall,and that's a bit boring with little purpose!
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
266
38
32
188
Popular Days
Aug 7
50
Aug 8
46
Aug 2
42
Aug 1
33
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 266 posts
waysider 38 posts
TrustAndObey 32 posts
Bolshevik 188 posts
Popular Days
Aug 7 2017
50 posts
Aug 8 2017
46 posts
Aug 2 2017
42 posts
Aug 1 2017
33 posts
Popular Posts
DontWorryBeHappy
Raf.......YES! And so are you! TY!
TrustAndObey
I can understand where you are coming from Raf. However, if you honestly are inviting a discussion on these topics, could you be clear on what you consider is dodging. Because, to myself, you make it
TLC
It's not just people that say it. Scripture itself says that God is good. But simply equating morality to that which is "good" and attributing the cause (or source) of it to the law (and then equati
Posted Images
Raf
Remember the time Paul returned a runaway slave to his master, and he told the master that it's just wrong to own a human being, and he should free the slave because it's ungodly for one human being to straight up own another? Me neither. I remember the part where Paul tells the master to be super nice to the slave because they're both Christians now. But nothing about freeing the slave. Nothing about freeing any slaves, Christian or non Christian. There is therefore then no condemnation of slavery for those who are in Christ Jesus.
Say, that's New Testament, isn't it? Slavery was not abolished in the New Testament either? Wow. That Yahweh is something else. BBans people with crushed testicles from his presence, but slave owners are good to go.
Thank goodness Jesus brought an end to the New Testament! Wait, what?
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
That word "servants"? Doulos. Bondslave. Not an employee. A slave. Yahweh never banned slavery. Not even in the New Testament. You are more moral than Yahweh, thank goodness.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
At least Yahweh tells slave masters to be nice to their slaves. Hey, you know what would be really nice? Not owning people. Not owning people would be really nice.
Old Testament morality: it's okay to beat your slaves, as long as you don't kill them.
New Testament: try to be a little nicer to your Christian slaves.
Moral people: what's say we just don't own people?
You are more moral than Yahweh. Before and after Jesus. He just never got around to saying slavery was inherently immoral. We all know that today, but not from Yahweh. We know it because we are more moral than Yahweh. Even New Testament Yahweh. Even EPHESIANS Yahweh.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
If we are going to discuss whether Yahweh is moral, the Old Testament law is important BECAUSE HE AUTHORED IT.
Noting the role of Jesus Christ as "suspending" the law is all well and good, but it does not address the fact that God wrote the Old Testament law in the first place.
Saying that Israel received the law because Israel wanted a king ignores two facts. One: that the Old Testament law was commanded by Yahweh CENTURIES before there was a king in Israel. Two: Any barbaric laws that WERE put in place by men are not factors in this discussion.
The only question this thread is concerned with is God's morality.
Is anyone trying to say that God did not write the Old Testament law? I would agree with you COMPLETELY! But that's not what the Bible says. The Bible gives God the credit for commanding some laws that we recognize today as being completely immoral.
This thread is not about laws that are not attributed to God's command. Such laws are off topic.
This thread is not about people who followed the law to the letter, nor is it about people who failed to follow the law. Those subjects are off topic. If you want to discuss them, start another thread. But don't bury THIS thread in a mountain of irrelevant information.
This thread isn't even about good laws. We would expect good laws now and then from any man made set of laws. So what? A good law here and a good law there does nothing, not one thing, to detract from the fact that God imposed the death penalty for petty reasons, making you more moral than God. God regulated rather than abolished slavery. That makes you more moral than God. God's Laws on rape were utterly unfair to women. That makes you more moral than God.
Many of you reading this are unaware that you really are more moral than God. And it's not just the Old Testament law. The New Testament refers to the law as holy just and good. The new testament does nothing to correct the old testament's most basic error on slavery.
This thread is about God's morality. If you want to start a thread that's a survey of the Old Testament, have at it. Somewhere else. Not on this thread.
I don't know how to be more clear.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I didn't post for six days. I did not expect no one else to post for six days!
For those "guests" who posted while I was taking a break, please check your email. You're welcome to rejoin us, provided you were really you. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
On what basis do you declare/discern/judge/conclude God to be moral?
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I find it interesting that the interest in discussing the issue stops once it becomes clear that staying on topic will be enforced.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Why did God command genocide?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
It happens often, and it happened in this thread as well (right at the beginning).
Whenever a critic accurately cites God's law as evidence that God is immoral, the defense frequently seems to be, "well, it was a different time and a different culture."
I don't think that argument washes, for a lot of reasons. I have yet to hear a compelling case for why that argument should be accepted. Allow me to explain my position:
God is GOD. I mean, He's GOD! He is omnipotent. And He has just shown His power and might to the Israelites in some pretty incredible ways. So he brings them out of Egypt and into the wilderness, and he hands them HIS law.
So far, I'm not seeing ANY room for the intrusion of the hard-heartedness of the Israelites, unless God is being pre-emptive here, which I suppose is his right. But making concessions for hard-heartedness (for example, allowing divorce or making it relatively easy) is not the same as allowing EVIL because the Israelites could not handle good. That is preposterous. I mean, if he's going to make concessions for that, He might as well not give His law. "Well, these folks can't really handle not owning another human being, so I'll just regulate human being ownership and forbid them from killing their slaves. Hurting is okay, I guess, as long as the slave isn't hurt for too long. BUT NO SHELLFISH! And if you work on Saturday, you're DEAD!"
This is not rational behavior from a North Korean dictator, much less from someone who embodies and defines "objective" morality.
Second-guessing God is a HUGE sin. I know, because often when I discuss this with people, I am accused of second-guessing God. Funny that these same people have no compulsion whatsoever when it comes to second-guessing Allah. But then, Allah is obviously a made up God, which we know because when we scrutinize his word, it is filled with barbaric admonitions and declarations we know to be untrue. Not like the Bible at all (why, yes, I am being sarcastic! And props to you for noticing).
My sense is, if God were really opposed to slavery, He would have just banned it, like he banned shellfish and working on Saturday. So he must not be opposed to slavery. (But... but... but...) But NOTHING! I'm supposed to be impressed that he banned it later? I'm not, for two reasons. First, he allowed it initially, and that is morally unacceptable. Second, he never banned it. Old Testament and New, God never banned slavery. The best you can say, on a good day, is that he laid out a moral case against it. But it never became important enough to him that he felt compelled to say, "You know what, don't do that. Period. Don't own people. Ever."
The fact that Yahweh got slavery wrong -- slavery is one of the easiest moral questions man has ever faced. Seriously. It's not hard at all. Thou shalt not own people. Yahweh came down on the wrong side of it, regulating it instead of banning it (when you look at the list of things he banned on punishment of death, the absence of slave-owning on that list becomes startling).
Now, I know what some of you are thinking. If I don't believe in God, who am I to declare God's permission of slavery to be morally unacceptable? I want you to think about that question, long and hard, and about what it imlpies.
The question implies that I am wrong, by God's objective standard of morality, to declare slavery unacceptable. The question implies that slavery is acceptable.
And if THAT's what you think, then I shudder at what else you would permit in God's name.
If it's NOT what you think, then you, too, are more moral than Yahweh.
I invite feedback.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Let's try a different approach.
If you were God, giving your law to your chosen people, and your chosen people wanted to keep slaves, would you regulate slavery, or would you tell your chosen people: "No. Under no circumstances is one human being allowed to own another. I forbid it. End of discussion. You do it, and you will make Me very angry, and you wouldn't like Me when I'm angry"?
God chose to regulate slavery. If I'm right, you would have abolished it, no questions asked. That makes you more moral than God, doesn't it? I mean, can regulating slavery be MORE moral than abolishing it, if morality is absolute and objective?
If you were God and you gave your law to your chosen people, and one of your laws was not to work on a particular day, what would your punishment be for that infraction? Would you require that the person not eat until the next sunset? Or would you stone him with stones until he dies?
God chose to stone the poor sticker-picker-upper. If I'm right, you would not have done it. That makes you more moral than God, doesn't it? I mean, can the death penalty for the most minor offense imaginable (seriously, who, other than God's ego, is hurt when a man picks up firewood on a Saturday?) be MORE moral than a token "punishment" with no long-lasting harm other than discomfort and inconvenience?
[To answer a point made on an unrelated thread, these questions do not entail atheist presuppositions. They presume that the God of the Old Testament is a real being who really communicated His will, and they evaluate His law according to our current moral values. So I truly do invite discussions that tackle these difficult questions. Dodging these questions by pointing out irrelevant information is not on topic and therefore not welcome -- NO MATTER WHO DOES IT. God banned usury. Well, that's wonderful, and it's certainly a good thing. But does it address the fact that he failed to abolish slavery and that he instituted a punishment for Sabbath-breaking that even ISIS members would say is a little on the harsh side? No. It's a dodge. Dodges are off topic].
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
I can understand where you are coming from Raf. However, if you honestly are inviting a discussion on these topics, could you be clear on what you consider is dodging. Because, to myself, you make it sound very subjective. Is it dodging to point out true facts if they are about the subject but not necessarily answering your questions? It's hard to define terms, set the stage, etc, if instead everything must be said in one fell swoop..
There's a number of things that would need to be discussed alongside these questions to discuss these fully. Issues with language (The original Hebrew language being lost when the Jews went into exile), issues with culture (the western thought of slavery is not the same in the eastern culture), bridging the 3000+ years gap is not as easy as just reading a sentence and relating it to anything today, actually speaking it is impossible to go back 3000+ years and know for certain, which opens the door for subjectivity even when one attempts to be objective.
When I mention culture, I'm not talking about it being treated differently and given a pass, but rather understanding their way of life. Because to the eastern mindset, what we call "employees" today is barbaric to what they called ebed("slaves") in the Tanakh (It's demeaning to many Jews to call it the Old Testament).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
At last! You're obviously on topic. Go on!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
It's really not hard. In my posts, I'm laying out specific differences between morality as we understand it today and Yahweh's laws and behavior as exhibited in his law. My premise is that if morality is both objective and absolute, and God is the source of that objective, absolute morality, then his law should be absolutely and objectively moral. In all points. So instances in which his law appears to not be moral according to our standards MUST be addressed. Are our standards wrong? Are we misunderstanding the scriptures?
Now be careful. You talked about the eastern mindset considering the concept of an "employee" barbaric. The burden is now on you to demonstrate not just that they felt this way, but that they were correct to do so. That is, if you're equating the eastern mindset with God's will. Otherwise, we're off topic again. I'm not asking if you are more moral than Bronze Age Israelites. I'm asking if you are more moral than the God they worshipped.
Personally, I don't see how you can come up with a definition of slavery that is BOTH Biblically accurate and morally defensible. The Bible doesn't just employ the word. It establishes the meaning. And God never abolished the institution. As slavery is defined and regulated in the Bible, I submit YOU would have abolished it. God didn't. Why?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I should add that an examination of God's morality is not limited to the law. It can and should also include his behavior before the law was given and after.
I'll give you some examples of on topic v. off topic.
"Raf, you misunderstand what slavery was 3000 years ago v. what it was 300 years ago. Here's a list of differences that account for why God never banned it in the Torah." That would be completely on topic. It directly addresses the issue raised in the thread topic and in the opening/subsequent posts.
"I think the Bible contains God's word but not that it IS God's word. As such, some of the things that made it into the law are a better reflection of the harshness of man than they are of the so-called immorality of God." That would be completely on topic. It directly addresses the thread topic and the opening/subsequent posts.
"God banned murder. So He got some things right. You're just cherry-picking the bad things." Actually, such a comment would be just cherry picking the good things. The comment is on the line, at best. The thread topic is not "Can't God do anything right?" If it were, a list of things that underscore his morality would be on topic. God banned murder. God banned usury. God doesn't like potty mouths or cheating on your wife. Sure, bring them up, but why? Do they address the thread topic? No, because they are not really in dispute.
Remember, the thread topic is "Are YOU more moral than Yahweh?" It is not "Are all people more moral than Yahweh?" Why is that distinction important? Because we're not comparing Yahweh's stand on slavery to Simon Legree's. We're comparing it to yours. We're not comparing Yahweh's stand on usury to Vinnie the Fingerbreaker's. We're comparing it to yours. So unless you approve of murder, usury, adultery, and fould language, invoking Yahweh's stand on those issues does not actually contribute to the discussion.
"Other cultures at the time were worse." Off topic. The question is not "Were other cultures at the time more moral than Yahweh?"
"Raf, you need to read the scripture with open eyes. It's clear you can't do that anymore because you've closed your eyes to the things of God and are now influenced by demons." :offtopic:/>/> Not to mention ad hominem and deeply offensive. You're wasting your breath. And after what happened on this thread before, I'm not going to sit by while BS like that is thrown at me again, like I did last time. It will be reported and it will be dealt with instantly. I let things get out of hand by responding to them instead of reporting them. It will not happen again.
Show me what you see with your open eyes and open heart.
Hope that clarifies things.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
I think those examples give enough guidance and I'm sure I can stay within those bounds. Although I was very tempted to give the ol' "Raf, you need to read the scripture with open eyes. It's clear you can't do that anymore because you've closed your eyes to the things of God and are now influenced by demons.", but I will refrain. :P I never bought into TWI's view of demons and seeing them everywhere, but let me know if you see spiders coming out of my nose!
I think it also best while the overall topic is the morality of Yahweh, that we stick to a certain sub topic before moving on, else we could easily get lost in all the different sentences in the Tanakh that seem to wave the immoral flag.
One thing that I believe is important when speaking of the Tanakh is understanding what the "torah" is and what it is not. The word torah does not mean nor ever did mean "law" as it is translated today.
To take the sum of the "teachings"(torahs) in the Tanakh and then to try to connect that to what a nation would consider it's "laws" would be incorrect. And the continual translation of the word as "law" throughout has added much misunderstanding. They are however, considered God's guidance and teachings for His people, therefore we can use them to help evaluate morality. The word is sometimes used to denote other things (groups of texts, etc) but when I use the word at this time, I will be using it in it's most usual Biblical sense of God's guidance/teaching for His people.
Also to note is that while I do consider myself a Christian, I do not hold to fundamental views that the scriptures are a perfect record. I believe they contain men's words that may be inspired by God as well as words that they received dircetly from God and wrote, so not everything is "theopneustos" (That verse is sadly mistranslated IMHO).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
While I hear your caution, I am unequivocally stating that the "slavery" mentioned in the Tanakh is NOT something I would abolish. And while that might bring gasps, and maybe I am walking into a minefield without recognizing all the mines, this is what I believe, and I see no reason to hide from my belief, even if it be incorrect. What I have read, and what I know today, I do not see a problem with what the Tanakh describes. But that doesn't mean I know the entire spectrum either, I am not all-knowing. So let us discuss this, and maybe I have missed something!
I think for starters, one must understand that the word used for "slaves" in the Tanakh [ebed/abad] does not equate to what most Greco-Roman/Western thinkers mean when speaking of "slaves". It is a very complex and misunderstood subject I believe, but one worth delving into. I will leave with some quotes, but make no mistake, I am discussing here Yahweh's handling of [ebed/abad] in the Tanakh not other cultures.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Hm.
Is that why there were procedures for when an indentured servant had
completed his term of indenture, and decided to extend his term to
the rest of his life, becoming a slave after having spent years
working under that person already?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Sticking to one subtopic at a time seems reasonable to me. And slavery seems as good a place to start as any. I would add that I am VERY interested in hearing what you have to say on the subject. What you've posted so far requires more time than I have at the moment, but I promise not to ignore it.
And WW, welcome to the convo!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
T&O, were you done making your point, or do you have more to share?
Because I have oodles, but I want to wait my turn.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
I do have more to share... However, nothing is nicely packaged, or maybe even 100% ready.. I guess I envisioned more of an open discussion rather than a your turn/my turn debate style.. Granted, I'm sure we will both have questions for one another at times which will then lead to waiting, but at this early stage, I'd say if you have something to share, and your ready to disperse the info, please do so. If it is on something I've already mentioned great, but doesn't have to be.
My next post, I hope to dig a little deeper into the meaning of the word [ebed/abad] from a Hebrew perspective. Since the language itself is a very concrete language with little room for abstract thought. So we should be able to get a better picture from that. I haven't a clue what I'll find. But my current thoughts places the Hebrew concept of the words more around what I mentioned in the previous post, that it refers more to a servant/employee role rather than what today would be thought of slavery in the sense of the 3 points already mentioned, "slaves as property and commodities; their use exclusively as labor; and their lack of freedom". While we all to some extent are commodities that our employers and/or governments use to their advantage, used as labor, and have varying degrees of freedom that they(employers and governments) afford us, the difference lies in that we have some say in the matter to a certain degree to which slaves had close to none (in which I refer to slaves here as those from the American south, not the ebed/abad of the Tanakh). It does come down to degrees. And while I realize the "political" forum was closed down, this subject "may" lead into some very political thoughts and maybe even controversy there, so we may want to be careful that we stay according to what the site administrators will support.
In saying that, it may be Monday before I have time to post again. My weekends are usually family time. But Monday, ebed/abad, and maybe answering whatever questions you might have.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I think I'll wait until you review the scriptures, weigh and (if I may be so bold) reconsider what you're saying. Your initial gasp-eliciting comment came with a humble and open-hearted caveat that I'm sure, if you follow through on it, will have you revoking your "I wouldn't abolish it" position in short order.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Proposal: instead of calling it slavery and making comparisons to the instutution we all know and condemn, let's call it "ebeddery" and deal with it on its own terms. Because the issue is not really a comparison of Biblical slavery (ebeddery) and 18/19th century slavery. The issue is whether ebeddery is moral, on its own terms.
You have stated that ebeddery is not something you would abolish. I submit that if you analyzed ebeddery on its own terms, you would change your mind about that. You have to. Any moral person would.
I would like to see you arrive at an honest conclusion using the Bible to define its own terms, laws, rules, permissions, etc. The less I say, the better.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
That's fine if we don't call it slavery, since it doesn't relate well to what most consider as such. However, the issue it not "whether ebeddery is moral, on it's own terms", but rather what Yahweh allows(disallows) is more/less moral. Since this is about Yahweh not other's morals.
I did a number of searches to try and decipher the root of ebed, but unfortunately, everyone has this three letter word as the root itself (although 2 letter roots exist), which makes it a bit more difficult in deciphering. The 3 letters that nake up this word, ayin(to see) - bet(house/family) - dalet (door). There are a number of possibilities here, and no one had a definitive concrete understanding from the ancient language. So I'll share a couple possibilities. The dalet(door) is a picture of a cloth hanging down and sometimes symbolized the poor/sick. In this sense, the servant(ebed) is the poor one seen in a family/household. Another, is that the status of a servant is always in relation to whom he served, and whom you served is considered your family. Thus being a servant is seen as a doorway to a family and a higher status. If you were a servant of a king, just because you were his servant, your actual family "status" was well above most common freemen.
Normally one could look at other wprds made from the root, but I can't be certain here that "ayin/bet" is the root. But it does seem to have some coorelation looking at a couple of these. One of them is the word for a "pledge" (ayin-bet-thet) from which comes the word to "borrow". But the pledge is given in return for securing something, like for securing a loan. Both words have the underlining meaning of an exchange. The first one with a view towards gaining something. And it's that thought, that another similar word with the same (ayin-bet-resh) meaning a crossing. That is to cross from one side to gain access to the other. And while the grass may not be greener, the underlying thought is that it is a journey to get somewhere better.
So with all that, while I can't 100% be certain, it looks like the focus of ebedis not so much the work or labor, but rather the focus, and that being the way(door) to access something. And I think we can all see that with any type of employment, usually people work for the purpose of gaining a wage and thus advancing themselves.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
I'm not sure how much profit we could get from actually looking at all the different verses that show the complexity of this word, since it is used everywhere from those who just worship gods (the word worship being ebed), to those who take care (serve) of their brother/sisters. It is used of the most basic of words for any type of work performed by a person as well as used of those who are in a servant/master type relationship, to those called a "bondsman/woman" who desired to continue to serve their master even after their appointed time (although the Jewish midrash says even this time is limited as they must be set free at the jubilee). However, it is not used for those forced into labor with the exception of those who stole and by edict of the courts must work to repay what they stole at which time they are free.
I think what might be best to get into next is to get into what Yahweh is noted as specifically saying in the Tanakh to get an understanding of His ways.
Feel free to chime in here, I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall,and that's a bit boring with little purpose!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.