Did God condone slavery?

Author: Castin

Posts

Total: 92
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,572
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@Tradesecret
Longer post, took me a while to get to it.

I think attempting to say whether God condoned or didn't condone salvery is a very simplistic question on a very complex idea. 

It's well and good to say that God could have simply put into the Bible - "don't own slaves."  He didn't, therefore, he condones slavery. I think that is a very weak argument. 
I'm arguing he condoned slavery because he says so in Lev 25:44-46, as per the OP.

The number one problem that people have with slavery is stealing people, kidnapping free people against their will and making them slaves.  God ABSOLUTELY condemns kidnapping people - whether they be Jew or Alien.   So I think it is right to say that God does not condone slavery in the way that slavery is conducted in our world today. 
  1. The Hebrew word in Exo 21:16 is ish, I believe, which usually referred to an adult male Israelite in the Covenant Code. Almost certainly did not apply to aliens -- you can read this more clearly in Deut 24:7.
  2. The number one problem I have with slavery is that I think owning another human being is wrong. Whether they were kidnapped, indentured, what have you.
  3. Seems to assume most slaves were sourced via kidnapping. That isn't true. Slaves could be bought from surrounding nations, captured via conquest, or even pressed into involuntary debt slavery (see 2 Kings 4, where the creditors are coming to take the woman's children as slaves). Girls could be sold into sexual slavery by their fathers. There were many tragic ways people could become slaves without being stolen off an Israelite street. And of course Israel had no way to regulate how slaves were sourced in the nations they purchased from.
Another part of the complexity is that in the time that Leviticus was written, EVERY nation on the face of the earth supported slavery. And in every nation apart from Israel, this slavery could arise from kidnapping. So there was already a clear distinction between Israel and other nations.
No, other nations were against kidnapping their citizens as well. See Babylonian law.

But I'm not really interested in whether or not Israel had a milder flavor of slavery than other nations. I'm interested in whether God condoned slavery.

 Also, back in those days, and interestingly, even in the world in some places today, people would sell themselves to others for a time, known as an indenture. Even the Jews could do this for 7 years. This is a type of slavery. The idea is based on the notion that "we own ourselves". And an important part of those ownership rights of our body, was the right to sell it to someone else.  Today - people don't own their own bodies. (not that the abortion movement cares) The State owns our bodies - and it has done so - since it legislated the idea that no property rights can exist in a human body.  Removing the ownership of property in body, removed the ability to privately sell your body to someone else - but it also effectively proved the point that we are slaves to the State. It owns our body and it tells us what rights we have. 

In those times - people from other cultures could sell their bodies to another person - even to a Jew. In a sense it was a form of welfare. Or perhaps a bank mortgage. 
This is only addressing debt slavery. God condones chattel slavery as well.

But make no mistake: debt slavery, much like debtor's prison, is still wrong. I have already showed that it was not always voluntary in the Bible. Poverty is not an excuse to imprison or enslave anyone, and there are many better social methods of relieving financial desperation than slavery.

The Israelites, however could not go looking for people in other cultures to buy slaves. And the reason for that is because the predominant manner in which people became slaves was by kidnapping. 
I'd like you to explain this more. I don't want to misunderstand/misrepresent your argument.

The other time when Israel needed to consider slavery was in times of war.  What were they to do with the foreigners they captured? If they released them - then they would form part of a group to try and get rid of them. Or they would go back and join the families they came from and start fighting again. The Jews were disliked then probably in the same way they are now. didn't have welfare in those times, so people had to make money somehow to get food.  So they had to do something with them. I suppose they could kill them. But they were captured in war - and unless God said to destroy them - then they couldn't. 
Lev 25:44-46 is not about preventing the enemies' survivors from mustering a rebellion. It's just basic chattel slavery. "It is okay to enslave foreigners."

Overall, I think the matter is far too a complex matter to come up with a simplistic answer. 
I disagree. While God's position on slavery is nuanced, I think the question of whether he condoned slavery is a simple one, with a simple answer.
yachilviveyachali
yachilviveyachali's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 265
0
2
3
yachilviveyachali's avatar
yachilviveyachali
0
2
3
-->
@Castin
Do you have free will or not? A God who wants slaves would have never allowed us to know evil and become sinners. 

Does God condone slavery? “Condone”, if you consider the origin of the word and its Latin translation (it has the same meaning in Italian), strictly means to forgive or absolve. God may forgive slavery among His people. However, he does not wish for there to be slaves. God allows sin, although he wants us to not sin. Allowing sin does not mean he accepts it. Yet, he may allow or forgive it. Hebrews were permitted to be servants if they were impoverished, and permitted to own Hebrew slaves to punish. The foreign slaves were treated with mercy, and could sometimes better themselves. Slavery was a common practice by the time Moses received the Torah. What was God to do? 

Mankind is very flawed because God chose for us to have free will, and to not be enslaved. In having free will, we have enslaved others. God wants us to be absolved of all of our sins. God himself is a very complex character. What is for certain is that he wants us to pick the right path, but that not everyone is destined for the right path. The others are on the path, or they are lukewarm. 

Slavery is an issue among men. When Adam and Eve were created, did God grant them a slave? He did not. They were supposed to do their own work. The idea of sexual slavery was foreign, as Adam was only given one woman, and she was to be his wife. What happened? Satan, who too had been given free will as an angel, tempted Eve who tempted Adam. God told them to not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, alas, they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Our descent into hell begins here. 

What kind of God would He be if he did not give us a choice? We would be slaves.
AdaptableRatman
AdaptableRatman's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 2,630
3
4
8
AdaptableRatman's avatar
AdaptableRatman
3
4
8
-->
@Castin
It comes down to the Emperor's character, the way the Empire rubs and thus how the peasants are treated and rewarded.

I do not think democracy is short of masked feudalism. The masking has led to nihilism, hedonism and needing a lot of pills to stay sane and happy.

zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 13,773
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@AdaptableRatman
Based upon your asteroid principle, we did sort of concluded that MANGOD is responsible for everything...Including therefore, hedonism, nihilism, happy pills and slavery.

Or are you saying that MANGOD is only responsible for asteroids and Catholicism...Oh, and flat planets.

Though I'm interested to know how thick is flat Earth, and at what point does a flat planet become cylindrical.
AdaptableRatman
AdaptableRatman's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 2,630
3
4
8
AdaptableRatman's avatar
AdaptableRatman
3
4
8
-->
@zedvictor4
We don't know the thickness. Above the firmament is water, below us is water.

To be clear, most Catholics hard disagree on this. Catholics have been far more open to science especially since Thomas Aquinas, than the Protestants that arose later than them ironically.

I am not against science. I just see how, regarding globe earth theory it all can be faked by NASA that I think does not accidentally take 4 letters of SAtAN in its name.

I would not call it a cylinder but it is probably a wide cylinder. We do not know for sure what is under Earth. The Bible clarifies the following:

  • Earth never shakes/moves in any true sense. Eartquakes are internal not the Earth entirely shaking. There are 4 different verses explicitly saying this, if you want I can show you a source that clarfies.
  • Earth is a circle. Modern Catholics and many other sects say circle and round meant spherical, I say that is impossible. Hewbrew had a different word for ball-shape than circle. Multiple verses talk of the circle.
  • There are verses clarifying Earth has edges. The verse about corners is probably metaphorical but the edges around Earth cannot be metaphorical given how the verses went.
There is more than that such as a firmament outside the space between our sky and the sun+moon. That firmament means there cannot be true outer space.

I am being closer to a modern Southern Baptist than a modern Catholic in saying these things but I do not frankly care as I see Bible as inerrant and felt Round Earth was a lie before my conversion.

AdaptableRatman
AdaptableRatman's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 2,630
3
4
8
AdaptableRatman's avatar
AdaptableRatman
3
4
8
-->
@Castin
Empire rubs
Meant rules...
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 441
Posts: 2,527
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@Castin
"So because we are slaves to Christ, it is okay for one human being to own another? Does this mean you believe spiritual slavery and chattel slavery are morally equivalent?"

I don't know about "we" but those who are are. So according to biblical order, it is not okay to have another master aside from Christ.

I don't know what spiritual and chattel slavery is by you saying it.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 13,773
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@AdaptableRatman
Nasa, 1958.

Pythagoras. 570 BC.


We don't know the thickness.
Some theory.
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 80
Posts: 4,331
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@AdaptableRatman
NASA... not accidentally take 4 letters of SAtAN in its name.
Sure, and in Jesus are 2 letters of JEW and 2 letters of the Nazi S.S. Correlation? In the first, absolutely. In the last, not at all. So what? None of that is truth of consequence.
There are at least six truths of which I am aware that flat-earthers are just that. If the Earth's total landmass area [510M km squared] were spread in a flat rectangular plane, as on a paper map, we would still see the same exact sky from each of four corners.  Or, if a circle, from each 90-degree location around its circumference. Even if that surface area we're expanded by 1300x [as if Earth were the size of Jupiter, which is obviously also a spheroid], we would see the same sky. But, on the spherical Earth [it's actually an oblate spheroid, slightly larger at the equator than from pole to pole] from a distance of NYC to Cairo [about 6,900 miles along a diagonal because the two cities are not on the same latitude] a different sky of constellations is seen simultaneously. In winter, both cities are engulfed in night, simultaneously. From 35,000 feet and higher elevation in a jetliner, the curvature of Earth is obvious. I've personally seen it  dozens of times on flights to Asia and Europe, and it is not due to warped porthole windows because on the ground, straight things are still straight. No NASA, is not needed to obfuscate the truth with these two examples, and there are several others. To date, we have cataloged over 5,800 planets just in our galaxy. Every single one is a spheroid. It is what physical mass set in rotational attitude does - obeying ordinary astrophysical law. Oh, yeah, Earth rotates, and a flat-earth theory test intended to prove our non-rotation by measurement equipment measured, instead, a 15-degree movement over a 1-hour period. Coincidentally, 15 x 24 = 360; the circumference, in degrees, of Earth.  Those flat-earth  "scientists" claimed their equipment was faulty. Sure it was. That's why they used the equipment chosen to prove the "obvious," right? Oops. 

AdaptableRatman
AdaptableRatman's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 2,630
3
4
8
AdaptableRatman's avatar
AdaptableRatman
3
4
8
-->
@fauxlaw
Flat earth map is circular not rectangular. North pole is our center, South 'pole' is a fake pole and marks an ice wall that leads into the camouflaged barrier all around us.
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 80
Posts: 4,331
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@AdaptableRatman
Flat earth map is circular not rectangular. 
Yes, but I was giving you benefit of the doubt by offering a slightly larger distortion of landmass created by a rectangular map, and also why I offered a circular rendition of four quadrants at 90-degree separation, as well as super-sizing Earth's landmass to Jupiter scale. But none of those benefits offered are advantageous to the flat-earth theory and it's limitation of preventing seeing alternate night skies in different locations, even on a North pole-centered disc, as if one actually existed. By the way, I have traversed, at various times collectively, the entire  circumnavigation of Earth, and have never witnessed either an ice wall, which you do not mention is camouflaged, nor a "camouflaged barrier" around all. What camouflage, anyway? Is it hidden by A.I?
AdaptableRatman
AdaptableRatman's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 2,630
3
4
8
AdaptableRatman's avatar
AdaptableRatman
3
4
8
-->
@fauxlaw
You are wrong on Jupiter even existing as you think it does.

Elon Musk is with the devil. Those sent to Mars to populate it may be mass murdered in a chamber or given plastic surgery coerced to lie to the grave.

Never ever invest a cent to space stuff, it is of the devil. Maybe satellites exist between the firmament and our inner atmosphere, the rest is faked.

The reason you see different skies at different places far apart is because we have different view ranges. God has painted it as a holy tapestry. It is some sort of destiny map. I have an inclination to believe some of astrology may be valid but not specifically star signs and horoscopes.

The Catholic Church rejects astrology because it assumes the only way to believe it is to reject God as sovereign. What if God painted/sculpted a significant thing up there for us to study as a map or encrypted message?

Do we be arrogant and assume no? Then why accept science at all?
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 80
Posts: 4,331
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@AdaptableRatman
Why am I wrong vis-a-vis  thee existence of Jupiter?
Those going to Mars, shout;d we even go with the express aim to populate it, which may not be the case for longer than Musk is alive, may have a variety of outcomes, but if they're all murdered, who is the agent of murder?
Why is outer space of the devil. Here is his present, but temporary domain: Earth
Yes, we have different view ranges on Earth, but not because it is flat, and I've already explained why flatness is not its proper condition.
And astrology does not distinguish a difference of star charts depending on whether we are born in Chicago or London, or Bejing. Further, our star charts repeat every 122 years, in spite of our being celestially in a different location in space over that period of time. That is faulty understanding of the seven "wandering stars, Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, let alone the change of star locations as observed from Earth over a 10,000 year cycle. I've seen the night sky in that 10,000 years onto the future  by manipulation of a planetarium demonstration I was shown when obtaining my Astronomy merit badge as a Boy Scout. I  could not identify a single constellation  of 40 I just identified to qualify for the merit badge a few minutes before.  So, I've known since them that Astrology is as bogus as flat-earth theory.
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,572
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@yachilviveyachali
Do you have free will or not? A God who wants slaves would have never allowed us to know evil and become sinners.
This assumes God views the practice of slavery as evil. What passage supports this?

Does God condone slavery? “Condone”, if you consider the origin of the word and its Latin translation (it has the same meaning in Italian), strictly means to forgive or absolve.
This is the etymological fallacy -- the idea words can be reduced to their etymology. I am using the common understanding of "condone" -- "accept and allow to continue." The words "you may" from God meet that definition.

God may forgive slavery among His people. However, he does not wish for there to be slaves. God allows sin, although he wants us to not sin. Allowing sin does not mean he accepts it. Yet, he may allow or forgive it. Hebrews were permitted to be servants if they were impoverished, and permitted to own Hebrew slaves to punish. The foreign slaves were treated with mercy, and could sometimes better themselves. Slavery was a common practice by the time Moses received the Torah. What was God to do? 
Again, where does the Bible say slavery is a sin? And if it's a sin, why are you arguing it was beneficial to the slave?

And are you really making the argument that God lacked the power to overturn common social practice? Cutting off the end of your penis wasn't too big of an ask, but "stop owning people" was? Many of God's commands in the Bible are hard to follow and against the currents of common practice. Who can easily love their enemies? How many would really turn the other cheek if struck? Who would give their coat to someone who sued the shirt off their backs? Is it so easy to not covet your neighbor's things? Yet you're making the argument that God wrung his hands and said, "Oh well, they're just so gosh-darned determined to own people, what can I do? I guess I'll just bend my rules to their preferences..." No. This is not God's character in the Bible.

Mankind is very flawed because God chose for us to have free will, and to not be enslaved. In having free will, we have enslaved others. God wants us to be absolved of all of our sins. God himself is a very complex character. What is for certain is that he wants us to pick the right path, but that not everyone is destined for the right path. The others are on the path, or they are lukewarm. 

Slavery is an issue among men. When Adam and Eve were created, did God grant them a slave? He did not. They were supposed to do their own work. The idea of sexual slavery was foreign, as Adam was only given one woman, and she was to be his wife. What happened? Satan, who too had been given free will as an angel, tempted Eve who tempted Adam. God told them to not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, alas, they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Our descent into hell begins here. 

What kind of God would He be if he did not give us a choice? We would be slaves.
God also never intended us to murder, steal, and cheat. Yet we fell from the garden, and we began to do those things, and he told us it was wrong. But not slavery. Slavery he told us we could continue, if we practiced it with ethnocentric favoritism.
yachilviveyachali
yachilviveyachali's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 265
0
2
3
yachilviveyachali's avatar
yachilviveyachali
0
2
3
-->
@Castin
This assumes God views the practice of slavery as evil. What passage supports this?
He encourages fair treatment of slaves, who had been around for a very long time. God hates sin, yet he allows us to do it (although, there are consequences). Slavery appears to be a similar matter. Its mere existence does not tell us that God wants it.

This is the etymological fallacy -- the idea words can be reduced to their etymology. I am using the common understanding of "condone" -- "accept and allow to continue." The words "you may" from God meet that definition.
You can call it that if you wish. I, for one, believe words matter. Words did not suddenly come to be. The languages they originate from, and are still used in, are important. It is not your understanding of the word that matters; it is the word according to its true definition. The English dictionaries, due to modern-day use of many words, are often wrong in their definitions.

Again, where does the Bible say slavery is a sin? And if it's a sin, why are you arguing it was beneficial to the slave?
It is accompanied by a set of behaviors that can be sinful. God would like us to give, not to take.

And are you really making the argument that God lacked the power to overturn common social practice?
God is not a dictator.

Cutting off the end of your penis wasn't too big of an ask, but "stop owning people" was?
Slavery was widespread. He asked the Hebrews to circumcise the infant males. It is a different matter.

Many of God's commands in the Bible are hard to follow and against the currents of common practice. Who can easily love their enemies? How many would really turn the other cheek if struck? Who would give their coat to someone who sued the shirt off their backs? Is it so easy to not covet your neighbor's things? Yet you're making the argument that God wrung his hands and said, "Oh well, they're just so gosh-darned determined to own people, what can I do? I guess I'll just bend my rules to their preferences..." No. This is not God's character in the Bible.
We can all do these things, if we decide to in our hearts. A man can stop owning slaves or participating in the ownership of slaves, and he can love his enemy. 

Turning the other cheek is a very good message. Resisting the most base of instincts is quite revolutionary, and certainly good for the soul.

God also never intended us to murder, steal, and cheat. Yet we fell from the garden, and we began to do those things, and he told us it was wrong. But not slavery. Slavery he told us we could continue, if we practiced it with ethnocentric favoritism.
Slavery, as said above, can be accompanied by sin. God did not say we could continue to enslave; he commanded that there are rules the Hebrew must follow, and it does not say God would prefer slavery to exist than not. God gave us free will. What does this tell you? 
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,572
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@yachilviveyachali
You don't believe words matter. You want words to mean only their etymology when it suits your argument, and you want them to mean more than their etymology when it supports your argument. For instance, you've used the word "important," which originally meant "to bring in," yet you want me to interpret it as meaning "significant". You've used the word "infant," which etymologically means "not speaking," but you don't want me to take it as "non-speaking", you want me to take it as "baby." I could be an arse and only acknowledge the etymological definitions of all the words you're using, willfully ignoring what I damn well know you mean, but I won't because it's intellectually dishonest. Words evolve over time, and anyone who denies this is either a fool or a liar. "Condone" is here used to mean "accept and allow to continue." And that is all the attention I am going to give to desperate semantic apologetics.

So to be clear, you are saying that owning a human being is not wrong/sinful, in and of itself. Is your argument that God is okay with slavery as long as slaves are treated fairly?

yachilviveyachali
yachilviveyachali's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 265
0
2
3
yachilviveyachali's avatar
yachilviveyachali
0
2
3
-->
@Castin
“Importantia” has meant “significant” since the 15th century. It took on this meaning due to the “bearing of weight or consequence”, from “import.”

With regard to “infant”, I made myself quite clear when I said “He (God) asked the Hebrews to circumcise the infant males.” What did you think I intended to say? Since the 14th century, “infant” has referred to young child or babe, from the Latin infantem. I am not sure if you have encountered many babies (I understand you are pro-abortion), but infants are indeed non-speaking, until they are able to speak their first words, and at this time they are still not able to say very much. 

So to be clear, you are saying that owning a human being is not wrong/sinful, in and of itself. Is your argument that God is okay with slavery as long as slaves are treated fairly?
My argument is that God has to deal with the sinful nature of humans. I believe He dislikes slavery, but may have tolerated it among the Hebrews for reasons I don't quite know. Maybe He wanted to appease the Hebrews? God knows how flawed we are.

What I do know is that God has made numerous covenants, with the final being the covenant of Christ. Although slavery is mentioned in the New Testament, the emphasis is on giving, which seems to be something we all have to do. Most importantly, God gave us free will, which I interpret as Him being for freedom and not slavery. While it is true God wants us to submit to Him, He is not willing to take from us the choice. A slave owner does not consider this. It is a human creation resulting from human sin, that exists across the world in significant ways to this day.
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,572
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@yachilviveyachali
My argument is that God has to deal with the sinful nature of humans. I believe He dislikes slavery, but may have tolerated it among the Hebrews for reasons I don't quite know. Maybe He wanted to appease the Hebrews? God knows how flawed we are.

What I do know is that God has made numerous covenants, with the final being the covenant of Christ. Although slavery is mentioned in the New Testament, the emphasis is on giving, which seems to be something we all have to do. Most importantly, God gave us free will, which I interpret as Him being for freedom and not slavery. While it is true God wants us to submit to Him, He is not willing to take from us the choice. A slave owner does not consider this. It is a human creation resulting from human sin, that exists across the world in significant ways to this day.
We're three pages in, and nothing I have heard has yet explained why, if God loves freedom, if God thinks slavery is a sin, he would say this:

"As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you and from their families who are with you who have been born in your land; they may be your property. You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property. These you may treat as slaves, but as for your fellow Israelites, no one shall rule over the other with harshness."

Passages like this did great harm; slavers of the antebellum South pointed to them as justification for slavery. God could have done much to discourage slavery if he had simply said that slavery was a sin.

It seems to me that the biblical God was fine with the practice of slavery, though he had his prescriptions about it, and that Christians have collectively retconned God as anti-slavery.

yachilviveyachali
yachilviveyachali's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 265
0
2
3
yachilviveyachali's avatar
yachilviveyachali
0
2
3
-->
@Castin
I will continue to believe that God does not necessarily condone slavery among men. The slavery we see in the Bible more closely resembles indentured servitude, and if God thought slavery were good, He would not have given us free will. Free will means rebellion. God allows another powerful force to exist in Satan. He is not as powerful as God, but he is powerful, and many are destroyed by him. Do you not think God would get rid of him if he wanted to take from us the choice?

Passages like this did great harm; slavers of the antebellum South pointed to them as justification for slavery.
They did not need to use the Bible. Their economies needed slavery. It was life or death for the South. 

At the same time and for many centuries prior, a number of Christians opposed slavery or had reservations about slavery. Although westerners use products made by workers who work in terrible conditions for nothing or almost nothing, the countries who have people working in these conditions are, in most instances, non-Christian. Where would we be without Christianity? We cannot thank the Enlightenment for everything. Without Christianity, there would be no Enlightenment, which I would say abused the goodness of Christianity in going too far with what is seen as “enlightened.” Only Christianity would have allowed this.
MayCaesar
MayCaesar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 107
0
2
3
MayCaesar's avatar
MayCaesar
0
2
3
I am not sure what the point of the Bible is if a believer can just interpret inconvenient sentences however they want. The Bible contains many commands to take or, at least, keep and maintain slaves - and not a single passage plainly condemning it (to the best of my knowledge). If, given all that, a Christian somehow concludes that slavery is evil, then the claim that the Bible is a word of god is bunk.

It is as if someone read Marx' Das Kapital and concluded that, in communism, private property is good and public ownership is evil. Why read anything at all if words can mean whatever you want them to mean? Just generate a bunch of random symbols and pretend that it is a Shakespeare's novel.
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,572
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@yachilviveyachali
You will continue to believe whatever serves your faith, and that's fine. On the one hand, I'm glad you've reinterpreted scripture; I don't want people to believe in a slaver God. On the other hand, I'm troubled to see otherwise good people defending slavery. In any other context, they would never be apologists for slavery. Yet because we're talking about the biblical God, suddenly they're telling me that slavery was good for people, that it was normal at the time and so should get a pass, that they had to do it. That's bonkers, and I feel like y'all don't see how bonkers it really is.
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,572
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
When the Bible disagrees with modern morality, believers do one of two things.

The first is they'll leverage modern morality over and against the Bible -- which looks a lot like the responses in this thread. Deploying renegotiations with the text, reinterpretations, apologist arguments, semantics, and so on, all to make the point that the plain reading of the text isn't actually God's position on the matter.

The second is just the opposite: they will leverage the text over and against modern morality. This is more commonly demonstrated in Christians' stance on homosexuality, where suddenly the plain reading of the text is just fine.

The thing is, you could just as easily renegotiate God's position on homosexuality as his position on slavery. And in fact, liberal Christians do exactly that, arguing that God is not homophobic. But I'm willing to lay odds that many of the Christians in this thread would argue those liberals are twisting God's message and denying the plain reading of scripture.

So why argue so hard to renegotiate the Bible on slavery, but not homosexuality? Identity politics. Personal preference. Culture. The Bible says what the reader allows it to say. Conservatives allow it to prohibit homosexual sex, but do not allow it to condone slavery. And that's it. The truth is that the Bible is never the real authority on anything. Identity politics are.
AdaptableRatman
AdaptableRatman's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 2,630
3
4
8
AdaptableRatman's avatar
AdaptableRatman
3
4
8
-->
@Castin
I agree with you. Many Christians are dishonest imo, I believe I am an honest one at least about what my religion is.

2025 Mainstream Christianity in the West is a shambles. Especially among the left wing. I am realising that I am neither wing anyway but Conservatism aligns more with the right.
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,572
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
This is serious stuff I struggled with when I was considering whether to become Christian. I knew I disagreed on a deep level with so many passages in the Bible, while others genuinely resonated. Was I going to create my own interpretive framework that allowed me to embrace the passages that spoke to me, and dismiss the passages that did not? As so many other Christians did? Then I wouldn't really be following the Bible, I would be following my own judgment. The Bible itself says to trust in God's judgment, not your own. Was that a doctrine I could set aside and still call myself a Christian? And what was God's judgment, anyway, amongst so many conflicting passages, so many literary and historical strata -- and how could I ever cobble together a moral framework from it that I liked, but was still defensible as "biblical"? Simply put, I couldn't.
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,572
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@AdaptableRatman
I preferred it when you were an iconoclast, tbh. But if finding religion has brought you any measure of peace, I'm glad.
AdaptableRatman
AdaptableRatman's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 2,630
3
4
8
AdaptableRatman's avatar
AdaptableRatman
3
4
8
-->
@Castin
I am probably far more of an iconoclast now than literally ever in my life. The difference of me vs mainstream now is far more.

Id be labelled alt right probably by my European govt, despite being left wing on some matters.
AdaptableRatman
AdaptableRatman's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 2,630
3
4
8
AdaptableRatman's avatar
AdaptableRatman
3
4
8
-->
@Castin
I am so iconoclast that iconoclast figures like Trump dont work on their brainwashing of me. I am ahead of them. Really Trump is a poser that would be begging sorry with tears in his eyes repenting for his sins if true right wing fascism took over.

I am sick of posers.
AdaptableRatman
AdaptableRatman's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 2,630
3
4
8
AdaptableRatman's avatar
AdaptableRatman
3
4
8
-->
@Castin
Also you never really liked me. You found me entertaining like a circus act.

I noticed you leaving me out of a list you even put Bench who told me to literally kill myself that you knew about, when I was feeling low.

You did not respect me or list me as a member you liked. I remembered, noticed and moved on. I was nothing but kind to you. I defended you hard against systemic sexism in the mod team. You decided how to repay that.
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,572
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@AdaptableRatman
Oh, that's not true. You just have high rejection sensitivity. I liked you. 

If I'm remembering what you're talking about, that was a list of people who had left the site that I missed, and you hadn't left yet, that I knew of. Also, very much not aware of anyone telling you to kill yourself.

One of the things I respected about you was your liberal values, but it seems you have departed from them considerably. Can't pretend not to be sad about that.
AdaptableRatman
AdaptableRatman's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 2,630
3
4
8
AdaptableRatman's avatar
AdaptableRatman
3
4
8
-->
@Castin
In my country, Liberal values are the norm/tradition now. It is Iconoclast to push against it you even risk imprisonment.

The problem is a lot of those against 'Liberalism' are 'Libertarians' pretending they support free speech and other freedoms.

Both sides are gaslighting big time.

It is what it is.