Re: a large philosophical hole in christianity

[Strider]

i don't think any of the original scribes claimed to be writing the word of god. they were just retelling stories that had been passed down to them. and they thought of them as just that--stories, histories, family legends. so what if they changed them a little to make them more relevant to their contemporary situation? then, hundreds of years after that, many rabbis realized that they were all teaching from the same scrolls so they decided to make it official: they would call certain scrolls scripture and others would just be regular scrolls. (or if you prefer: after inspiring the original scribes, god chose to reveal which scrolls were inspired in the original, and therefore scriptural.)

my point is that there is such a thing as too high a view of scripture. the original authors didn't go home at night and say to their family, "god dictated another ten chapters to me today!" or any such thing, because god didn't speak to them any more clearly than he speaks to us today. however, over time certain books have shown that they are useful for teaching god's story. sixty-six such books have been canonized by christians and collected to form the bible.

So, Strider, are you saying that the standards of god should be judged by the standards of men in their different stages of history? Are you arguing that god, though he didn't support murder, was happy enough to see some as it showed progress. If so, then the bible is a set of moving targets that are only applicable in earlier times.

the bible isn't a collection of "targets" for us at all. rather it is the story of what god has done and who god is--it is not one big moral code. certainly all of the Mosaic Law is not for us to follow literally today. but by reading about Joshua's conquest you might find out that god requires purity of religion. YHWH does not want to be worshiped in the same ways that people have worshiped other gods. but you might also see that god is merciful even to those who are being judged, in this case the Canaanites; although they deserved death for participating in child sacrifices, god was content to have the Israelites drive out the Canaanites.

now, please, direct me to a passage where the bible supports slavery so that i will have to deal with it.

[wheels5894]

Mmmmmm, Strider, I'm not sure...
 
So the writers in earlier times wrote under the inspiration of god even though they did not know it and only centuries later were the things they wrote determined to be inspired by god? That is a very convenient way to put things - a less convenient one would be to leave god out as there is not evidence of inspiration and merely say the scribes and rabbis found there texts handy in establishing themselves as leaders of the nation and getting paid for it too.

We must remember that the scrolls were in a state of flux and being edited quite a bit before the final forms we know now. Take Jeremiah for example. The version translated into Greek in the Septuaguint (LXX) in c 200CE is considerably ,longer that the one found in the Hebrew Masoretic text that appears in Protestant Bibles, (Jerome used the LXX for the Vulgate). Why this is we don't know, at least we didn''t until the Dead Sea Scrolls were found and copies in Hebrew found there are in both versions. It is clear that the ancient scrolls were no preserved as one might imagine but updated when needed and certainly not seen as 'gospel'. In that case it is hard to think the scribes doing this though of the older documents as god's word.

Slavery

OK, here goes; -

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you.  You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land.  You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.  You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.  (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years.  Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom.  If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year.  But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him.  If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master.  But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children.  I would rather not go free.'  If he does this, his master must present him before God.  Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl.  After that, the slave will belong to his master forever.  (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are.  If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again.  But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her.  And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter.  If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife.  If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.  (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished.  If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.  (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

So, New Testament, love is the theme so surely no more slaves? Sorry but here we go...

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear.  Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.  (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed.  If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful.  You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts.  Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them.  (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

OK, that's enough for now. Any comments?

[dodgecity]

Ok, not sure how we made it to slavery, but it is a very important issue and no self respecting Christian should overlook it altogether. In fact, the teaching of slavery in the bible is a hot button issue for me because it directly influenced me to reject the bible as a moral guide, or even as a caricature of god. I am interested where this will go because Strider has impressed me so far and I'm curious as to what he thinks of it.

@wheels5894: Great verses, fantastic place to start. Thanks.

Now Strider, before you respond to the problem of slavery in the bible, let me go over three common responses that I find insufficient. Yes, this is copy pasta, but it's my copy pasta, and it's relevant. It's also exactly what I would say right now in this situation, if I had not said it before.

“That's the Old Testament (or Old Law) and it doesn't apply to us because Jesus came and replaced it with the New Law, which happens to be much more agreeable.”

This is the most common response I get but all it does is sidestep the issue. The problems with this response:

(1) Jesus came to fulfill the Old Law (his words), not to change it. He came to satisfy the Law, to carry it out, not to rebuke it. Jesus explicitly states that he did not come to abolish the Old Law. (Matt 5:17-18)

(2) Even if that Law does not apply to you now, it should still make you sick that your God, whose main characteristic is to abhor Sin, not only neglected to mentioned to the Israelites that it was wrong, but gave specific instructions on how to keep their slaves. He actually gave instructions on how to Sin! Any Christian knows that the Lord is not a God of making exceptions for Sin. That's not his personality at all. All Sin is equal in his eyes. Why would he kill thousands of people for making a golden cafe and never even show a hint of dissent toward the way they were treating their fellow man? What kind of God is this?

(3) God's word is eternal; his stance on Sin is unchanging and unwavering. (Isaiah 40: Sin is Sin! It doesn't change with culture! How silly is that? How can a Christian sincerely believe that nonsense?

Another common response I get is this:

“Well, slavery wasn't really slavery back then. The slaves wanted to be slaves because they were starving and they needed work.”

This is an outright lie. There is no simpler way to put it. It's a perfect example of how Christians will make up crazy excuses to defend the validity of the Bible. Let's do some myth busting:

(1) Slavery was not voluntary. Slaves were bought and sold as property, children were born as slaves and remained slaves their whole lives. (See Leviticus 25:44-46)

(2) God gave instructions on how to beat your slave to death. As long as the slave survived the beating for 24 hours before dying, the master was in the right, because it was his property. Some versions say “since it is his money.” (Exodus 21:20-21) How could this be beneficial for a person? Who would volunteer for that?

(3) Daughters were sold as sex slaves and if they did not satisfy their masters, they could be refunded. (Exodus 21:7-11)


Another silly one:

“Slavery is just something unavoidable that had to happen, like storms and famine. Because of free will, God has to let bad things happen to people.”

(This, believe it or not, it actually from the CARM website. This is what they have to offer, seriously?)

This is sidestepping the question! There is a huge difference between God letting Sin happen and God supporting Sin with his law! Storms and famine are not human acts, so they are irrelevant. Imagine if God gave specific rules on how to commit adultery. It would be entirely different from him letting adultery happen. Slavery is unavoidable? Since when does God make exceptions for Sin, the thing he hates most? If he's willing to send his child to Hell because of his unchanging stance on Sin, why would he make an exception here so that people could suffer? Why did god give specific instructions on how to sin?

[chuff]

I think the idea (for the Lucifer half) is that Lucifer is the greatest evil you could imagine, so his mind and "wantings" were tarnished beyond any other... so the thought is that his "capacity to enjoy god" is limited or not there, due to his evil nature...

Yes, his evil nature, which came from where? Hmm...

I don't think that christians think Lucifer regrets turning against god.. many of them believe he thinks he can still "win."

I'm currently working on a large collection of my own personal criticisms of the bible and of those who adhere to it, and what I'm wanting to do is refrain from reading any other criticisms whenever I can do it myself, and come to my own conclusions. Right now I'm in Genesis three, haha!

Sorry for plugging.

[Strider]

wow, you guys have obviously given this issue a lot of thought. first let me say, wheels5894, i see how the verses you have pointed out might cause you to have an objection to the goodness of the god of the bible; and dodgecity, i think i can understand why those particular responses were unsatisfactory. but now allow me to begin my response with a quote,

We do not find one verse defending slavery, while there are numerous laws protecting the rights of slaves . . . The memory of Israel's own slavery is to be reflected in a particular sensitivity toward the slavery of others. In this respect, Israel's laws were unique in the world at this time." --Bound for Freedom: The Book of Exodus in Jewish and Christian Traditions, Goran Larsson, p. 158-9

i think Larsson is on the right track--all of the verses you have mentioned are establishing or protecting rights for slaves. in other cultures, slaves had very few, if any rights. but unlike other gods, YHWH cares about all people, even slaves--especially slaves, as you will see if you take another look at Leviticus 25,

For [all Israelites] are my servants, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt; they shall not be sold as slaves are sold . . . 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 . . . These you may treat as slaves" Lev. 25:42, 44, 46

it may help to know that the English word "servant" in verse 42 is the same word which is translated as "slave" several other times in this passage--they are the same Hebrew word. therefore, the master-slave relationship is found twice here. in one, god is the master and the Israelites are his slaves; in the other, an Israelite is the master and non-Israelites are his slaves. so how should an Israelite treat his slaves? in the same way his master, god, treated him--which, as he is reminded in verse 42, was to rescue him from bondage in Egypt. for another example of how Israelites are to treat their slaves with compassion, see Deut. 15:13-15.

you may also be interested to learn that your second unwelcome response ("slavery wasn't really slavery back then") seems to have been a very popular premise among 19th century christian abolitionists. however, they also liked Deuteronomy 23:15-16. some argued (with good reason, i think) that universal emancipation would have been the immediate result of these verses being implemented into law:

Slaves who have escaped to you from their owners shall not be given back to them. They shall reside with you, in your midst, in any place they choose in any one of your towns, wherever they please; you shall not oppress them."

this response is quite long enough already, but i want to add that i think the christian doctrine of the imago dei is also very relevant to this discussion. but being somewhat more popular for discussion than Leviticus 25, you have no doubt already heard all you care to hear about Genesis 1. cheers!

EDIT: i just realized that i didn't deal with the New Testament verses from Paul's epistles at all. my bad! if you would like me to, i would be happy to try in a future post.

[brekfustuvluzerz]

finally an on-topic post.

I think the idea (for the Lucifer half) is that Lucifer is the greatest evil you could imagine, so his mind and "wantings" were tarnished beyond any other... so the thought is that his "capacity to enjoy god" is limited or not there, due to his evil nature...

Yes, his evil nature, which came from where? Hmm...

this doesnt do it for me. supposedly, lucifer was created by god as the most beautiful angel and placed in the highest ranking position. the story tells that lucifer was originally good, but at some point chose to turn. my question is how was this possible if god is what we are supposed to believe. if i were a christian, id be worried that this could happen to me after thousands of years of being in heaven worshiping god. one day i would just be sick of it. hopefully the option to bail is there for them like it was for satan.