Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
In a thread down lower, totally unrelated to this subject, slavery and the Bible came up and David Heddle made a comment that I want to reply to in full here. I want to move this up because I think this is a really important issue and, for me, it was hugely important. It was one of the key reasons why, as a young man, I ultimately decided that the Bible was not the word of God and left Christianity. I don't intend this as a slam on David; it is entirely incidental that he happens to be the one making this argument, which could have been made by millions of others. When the subject was brought up, this is what he wrote:
What Paul is teaching is quite clear. Slavery existed and was legal at that time. Paul told slaves to obey the law which meant to obey their masters. End of story. There is no debate or controversy.We can guess that neither Jesus nor Paul endorsed the Roman government, yet they both taught that Roman law was to be obeyed. So "slaves obey your master" is not teaching that slavery is morally acceptable any more than "pay your taxes to Rome" implies that the Roman government was moral.
The problem with this reasoning is that it requires that we condemn those who fought against slavery in America, where it was also legal at the time. We must bear in mind that Paul's advice to Philemon was not one of mere practicality (don't revolt because they may kill you if you do); for Paul, a Christian must obey the law because the lawmakers were endowed by God. Look at Romans 13:
1. Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. 2. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 3. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4. For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to [execute] wrath upon him that doeth evil. 5. Wherefore [ye] must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. 6. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
For Paul, clearly, human governments are ordained by God and if you do not obey them the punishment is damnation. This is a moral position for Paul, not merely a practical one. Just as clearly, then, this condemns the people who, for example, ran the underground railroad (a good many of them Christians, of course) and hid and helped runaway slaves. They were helping break the law.
Now, a Christian might reply that Paul's admonition only applies when the government's law does not violate God's law, but bear in mind that there is not a single verse in the Bible that condemns slavery and dozens of verses that support it. At no point in the 1400 years or so that God was allegedly speaking to various authors and inspiring them to put his commandments into writing did he ever inspire one of them to write that owning another human being was a sin; all of them assumed, like all other cultures of their time, that slavery was normal and acceptable.
This is one of the primary reasons why I can no longer accept the Bible as the word of God, as I once did. It makes no sense that God could have found the time or interest to inspire men to pass on his commandments regarding the most mundane of things - whether to cut one's hair, whether to wear mixed fabrics, how to dress, and so forth - yet never does he bother to say "don't own slaves". And this even when he had the perfect opportunity to do so when the events regarding Philemon present themselves to Paul. If God was indeed inspring Paul to write, why on earth would he not have Paul condemn slavery as contrary to the teachings of Christ? It simply makes no sense, nor do any of the apologetic rationalizations for it.
Comments
Excellent analysis, and similiar to my realization that the bible is bunkam. Of course, you can't ever go wrong taking a position of belief opposite that of David "Oily Mr. Smarmy-Pants" Heddle.
Posted by: J-Dog![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 23, 2006 11:01 AM
Posts like this are the reason Dispatches is the first blog I read every day.
A well-intentioned soul at work seems intent on saving me, and has invited me (on multiple occasions) to come to his church or just have lunch and discuss the bible. His church is evangelical, and at least quasi-fundamentalist: the bible is not necessarily the direct Word, but it is Inspired and Sufficient.
I have informed him that I would certainly enjoy an academic/intellectual biblical discussion, but I would likely approach it from a highly critical perspective. Interestingly, when I asked him about evolution (my foremost issue with fundamentalism) he was honestly at a loss to explain his Church's position, it had never come up! Perhaps if he doesn't have much to go with a evo discussion, we can talk slavery. You have given me a whole new set of issues....Heck, I'll just print out your entire archive and bring it with me.
Posted by: Osteo![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 23, 2006 11:10 AM
Ed wrote:
The rejoinder here, of course, is that the God of the Bible does not in fact find slavery morally objectionable. That is your human moral judgement, not God's. The Bible clearly has no problem with slavery and so, in the orthodox view, neither should we.
Posted by: Jeff Hebert![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 23, 2006 11:22 AM
David said something to the effect that Paul thought that harsh circumstances (such as being a slave) should not be that much of a problem for Christians and indeed could make their witness more powerful. OK, then: If a Roman official whose job was to hunt down Christians converted, should he not keep on persecuting other Christians, to give them even more chances to test their faith? Can't disobey the government, after all.
Or you could say that Paul did condemn slavery, but in a really roundabout and flowery way. OK, but why then did he condemn much more harshly less harmful acts like homosexuality? That wasn't even illegal in Rome as far as I know.
Posted by: windy![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 23, 2006 11:22 AM
Not only that, but people like Heddle always bang on about how atheism leads to moral relativism, while Biblical morality is absolute. Quite clearly, in this case the oposite is the case. If the morality of slavery is dependent on the present government's laws, then it will change over time. Which is precisely what biblical literalists and other hardline Christian moralists claim isn't supposed to happen. And finally, if the Bible is the only source of moral guidance, and you have a choice of voting for two identical parties but one supports slavery and the other doesn't, how do you know who to vote for? The Bible would seem to suggest either the one that supports slavery, or the one that wouldn't upset the status quo. Either way, it's hardly moral absolutism.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 23, 2006 11:28 AM
The Bible would seem to suggest either the one that supports slavery, or the one that wouldn't upset the status quo. Either way, it's hardly moral absolutism.
I'd venture at that point they vote for whichever party has their preacher in their pocket.
Posted by: Soldats![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 23, 2006 11:36 AM
With all this bible talk on this site lately is it even possible to understand the harm the belief that this book is infallible has caused millions and millions of people?
No one can ever seem to understand it, no one ever has, or ever will it seems. Perhaps because it simply isn't what people are raised to see it as. It is a strange mental phenomena, and I agree with Daniel Dennett it should be studied. What's curious is smart people who buy into it create elaborate schemes of rationalization to rescue an irrational belief in the first place and never seem to realize they are doing it. Isn't that the definition of delusional?
It is unfathomable.
Posted by: Chance![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 23, 2006 11:40 AM
Even some enlightened christians admit that the OT bible is a product of a particular culture at a particular time. They have a harder time admitting that the NT is also a product of a culture and time. Paul apparently was proud of being a Roman citizen. I wonder if he could have been protecting his ass in his writings by assuring the government that he was not a subversive.
Early christianity appealed to the under classes, including slaves, because it promised pie in the sky bye and bye. In other words, don't worry about this world because in the next world, the one that really counts, the great will be brought low and the low will be exalted. That particular part of christianity, which is not part of the words attributed to Jesus, is particularly harmful today. Think about former Intererior Secty James Watt, who didn't see any reason not to consume all natural resources because the end of the world was coming soon anyway.
Posted by: Mark Paris![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 23, 2006 12:31 PM
By and large, I agree with Ed's posting, but let me play advocatus diaboli for just a moment:
There is some level of research into slavery in the Ancient Near East that seems to suggest that the slavery practiced by Jews (and possibly Hellenized Jews like Paul) was not the chattel slavery with which most modern people are familiar, but rather something more akin to indentured servitude. Leaving aside for a moment the questions one might raise as to the dubious morality of such a practice in and of itself, would the truth of such a finding influence our reading of Paul and of other, similar, passages in the Bible? Wouldn't there be a different light shed on statements like, "slaves, obey your masters" if it were understood that "slaves" meant something more akin to "bond servant"?
I'm not saying I necessarily agree with such a construction, but it certainly seems rather anachronistic to simply assume that "slavery" as we define the word meant the same thing to people who lived thousands of years ago in an utterly foreign culture (much the same way biblical literalists anachronistically assume the translation of arsenekoi and its variants meant exactly the same thing to the Greeks as it would to us). At the very least, it's food for thought...
Posted by: Bill Snedden![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 23, 2006 1:00 PM
Even if slavery as practiced by the jews were different from slavery as practiced by the Romans, it doesn't matter, since the entire area was part of the Roman empire. Paul and the early christians were expanding their religious beliefs outside the jewish population and into the the rest of the population. The early questions about whether one had to become a jew before one could become a christian had been settled in the negative.
Posted by: Mark Paris![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 23, 2006 1:08 PM
Ed,
You have zeroed in on where the critical tension that arises: when one must choose between God's law and the law of the state.
There is moral absolutism: obey God. The problem is that at times it is impossible to decide which choice constitutes obeying God. God says do A, the state says to do B, and God says to obey the state's laws. How is this resolved? By the fact that we are under grace, not the law. God judges the heart, not the action. So, in the question of slavery, how would those Christians who broke the law (by harboring runaways) be judged? Well of course I don't know. But my guess is that in their heart they believed that what they did was in obedience to God's law and therefore they were compelled to break the state's law, so my guess they will be judged to have acted rightly. That is one of the beauties of the new covenant; our motivations speak louder than our deeds.
One could rightly argue that, on the surface, those who kill abortion providers could escape through the same loophole, and I think it would be a valid criticism. If someone wants to take the conversation in that direction, I'm willing.
It is possible, when one looks at the possibilities that one might have been faced with: (1) turning a slave over to authorities, (2) encouraging the slave to return or (3) harboring the slave --that each of them might be sinful or not depending on one's heart.
Paul chose option (2) with Onesimus (there is no indication that he turned Onesimus over to authorities for his forced return). Many in America chose (3). I don't think Paul's actions in choosing (2) amount to an endorsement of slavery nor do I believe those who chose (3) were in willful disobedience to God.
What would Paul have done with a runaway American slave? I don't know. As I said in the other thread, Paul seems to have sent Onesimus back to be a Christian witness, and he in almost "demanding" language, suggests to Philemon that Onesimus be treated as a brother. Nevertheless, to Paul, Onesimus's testimony and witness would have been much more important than his personal liberty or possessions. The eternal was important to Paul, not this blink of the eye. He may have taken the same approach with Christian runaways in America. I don't know. It's also possible that he discussed the matter with Onesimus --we have no idea what Paul would have done if Onesimus refused to go back.
What everyone wants is a biblical lesson that goes like this: slavery is very bad; all Christians are authorized to fight a holy war against it. But the lesson from the bible is much more nuanced. It's more like: the world has all sorts of bad things in it, including slavery. Our primary mission as Christians is not to rid the world of those bad things but to preach the gospel. At times, this may mean enduring those social ills while proclaiming Christ. The gospel is not a gospel of social justice, but a gospel of eternal life.
Ginger Yellow,
"Not only that, but people like Heddle always bang on about how atheism leads to moral relativism, while Biblical morality is absolute."
And you can show me where I have banged on about how "atheism leads to moral relativism?" It would be interesting, because I don't believe that. What I actually believe is perhaps just as reprehensible to you, namely that even if you are an atheist your moral compass comes from God, whether you like it or not. That is far different from what you have attributed to me.
Posted by: David Heddle![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 23, 2006 1:29 PM
God judges the heart, not the action.
"A shipowner was about to send to sea an emigrant ship. He knew that she was old, and not overwell built at the first; that she had seen many seas and climes, and often had needed repairs. Doubts had been suggested to him that possibly she was not seaworthy. These doubts preyed upon his mind, and made him unhappy; he thought that perhaps he ought to have her thoroughly overhauled and refitted, even though this should put him to great expense. Before the ship sailed, however, he succeeded in overcoming these melancholy reflections. He said to himself that she had gone safely through so many voyages and weathered so many storms, that it was idle to suppose that she would not come safely home from this trip also. He would put his trust in Providence, which could hardly fail to protect all these unhappy families that were leaving their fatherland to seek for better times elsewhere. He would dismiss from his mind all ungenerous suggestions about the honesty of builders and contractors. In such ways he acquired a sincere and comfortable conviction that his vessel was thoroughly safe and seaworthy; he watched her departure with a light heart, and benevolent wishes for the success of the exiles in their strange new home that was to be; and he got his insurance money when she went down in mid ocean and told no tales.
"What shall we say of him? Surely this, that he was verily guilty of the death of those men. It is admitted that he did sincerely believe in the soundness of his ship; but the sincerity of his conviction can in nowise help him, because he had no right to believe on such evidence as was before him. He had acquired his belief not by honestly earning it in patient investigation, but by stifling his doubts..."
William K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1874), quoted in Sagan's "Demon-Haunted World"
Posted by: windy![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 23, 2006 1:41 PM
David Heddle wrote:
I don't expect a demand that all Christians fight holy war against slavery; I'd settle just for a single statement that says it is morally wrong to own another human being. Instead, the Bible is full of verses that imply the opposite, that treat slavery as perfectly normal and acceptable and appropriate. Indeed, God specifically tells the Israelites that they are to take slaves from among the surrounding people and among those they conquered.
Yet the Bible contains hundreds of verses condemning the most trivial of actions as sinful and, in many cases, worthy of death. A woman who was not a virgin on her wedding day was considered so utterly immoral that the only solution was to stone her to death; yet, not a single word even hinting at the immorality of slavery, by any sane measure a far worse evil than premarital sex could ever be. I simply can't take seriously a moral system that treats the most trivial of actions as worthy of death but, when it comes to something as monumentally immoral as slavery, retreats to rationalizations like "oh well, the world is full of bad things and it's not our mission to rid it of bad things." It simply doesn't add up or make sense to me, nor to anyone else including, I suspect, you. I can't imagine you really find the sort of rationalization that you offered above to be satisfactory and compelling.
Posted by: Ed Brayton![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 23, 2006 1:45 PM
But, in Philemon, Paul also exhorted Philemon to treat his returned slave *as he would treat Paul*. Slavery was an established part of the economy in the Roman Empire. Paul implored Christians to treat their slaves like family and not like property. Slaves held positions of authority in the early church. That Scripture was later twisted to support the Southern American idea of slaves as less than human dosn't do justice to Paul.
Now that we have an appreciation for individual rights, chattel slavery is unthinkable. Morally speaking, there's no going back.
Posted by: ruidh![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 23, 2006 1:50 PM
"That is one of the beauties of the new covenant; our motivations speak louder than our deeds." That is one of the problems with christianity as it is practiced today: the only thing that matters is "what is in your heart." Thus any action can be justified.
"The eternal was important to Paul, not this blink of the eye." As I said earlier, this is another one of the serious problems with christianity as it is practiced today: what happens in this world does not matter; only heaven is important. Thus many of the problems that plague the world and its people today can be ignored.
My view of any belief system is that if it results in an objective benefit, then it is good. If it results in an objective harm, then it is bad. If it results in neither, then it is irrelevant. David, you're arguing the twisted theology of modern christianity to a bunch of people who find it irrelevant at best.
Posted by: Mark Paris![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 23, 2006 1:53 PM
In a way I wish it was irrelevant, but David is hardly alone in his beliefs and to his credit is obviously knowledgable, so I do have some interest in at least trying to understand where he and other Christians who share his views are coming from. I agree with roughly zero of what he apparently believes though. To paraphrase what he said above in a reply, 'What I actually believe is perhaps just as reprehensible to David, namely that even if David is a Christian his moral compass comes from the superstitions of ancient ignoramuses struggling to comprehend their world, whether he likes it or not.'
Posted by: Dave L![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 23, 2006 2:37 PM
I give David credit for coming into the lion's den, so to speak, and answering tough questions. Even while I don't agree with him, I have to respect that he's willing to do that in a hostile environment and remain civil and engaging.
Posted by: Ed Brayton![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 23, 2006 2:40 PM
I called David's theology "twisted," but I think maybe "tortuous" is more appropriate. I meant to refer to the twists and turns that the argument has to follow to reach the desired end.
Posted by: Mark Paris![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 23, 2006 2:51 PM
Dave L wrote:
Seconded.
Posted by: Jeff Hebert![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 23, 2006 2:58 PM
How very convenient for you. Not to mention the rather obvious contradiction with any number of parables and other of Christ's teachings.
Again, how very convenient. I know you subscribe to a frankly bizarre, almost Calvinistic conception of Grace, but that doesn't get around the fact that either someone subscribes to a concept of God's law or they follow something else. Whether or not it's God causing them to follow it is irrelevant.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 23, 2006 3:00 PM
It is possible, when one looks at the possibilities that one might have been faced with: (1) turning a slave over to authorities, (2) encouraging the slave to return or (3) harboring the slave --that each of them might be sinful or not depending on one's heart.
Are these really the only possibilities? This is like the argument that the current Pope had "no choice" but to join the Wehrmacht. Both choices are completely understandable considering the cultures they lived in at the time. But saying there was no other way is IMO demeaning to people who risked their lives helping slaves escape, opposing the Nazis, or in some other way trying to make things better.
And if Paul was so sure that slavery was just peachy for a Christian, let him go and be Philemon's slave instead.
Posted by: windy![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 23, 2006 3:13 PM
What everyone wants is a biblical lesson that goes like this: slavery is very bad; all Christians are authorized to fight a holy war against it.
Way to distort the issue, David. As Ed points out, all that's needed is a single, simple Bible verse that would condemn slavery and this particular issue would have never existed.
But what do you expect from a God that commanded genocidal acts and mass rape from his followers?
Posted by: tacitus![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 23, 2006 3:48 PM
Ugh - must preview. First paragraph above should be quoted (from David Heddle's comment).
Posted by: tacitus![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 23, 2006 3:51 PM
How can one not see how obviously ridiculous this statement is? It is the equivalent of 'treat you dog as if he were family and not like property'.
The mere fact that you view another human as property is the definition of slavery. It makes no statement of how you treat them. There simply is no rationalization for this and people shouldn't try. It is demeaning to attempt to make it somehow less 'evil' to rescue an irrational belief. Why is it so hard for people to simply say the bible is incorrect? How will your life change?
I also give David credit for coming here. I actually agree with him on some things but find him guilty of far to many rationalizations to be taken very seriously. But all apologists are that way to some extent.
Which, much like the gay marriage debate, I think will ultimately lead to a reduced number of fundie Christians as the glaring rationalizations of the apologists illustrate the vacous nature of the arguments better than any opponent ever could. Eventually poor arguments are smelled out. If it wasn't for childhood indoctrination it would be far less of a problem.
one of my favorite quotes:
'One of He who begins by loving Christianity more than Truth, will proceed by loving his sect or church better than Christianity, and end in loving himself better than all.'
Posted by: Chance![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 23, 2006 3:58 PM
Hello, a friend directed me to your post here. I’d like to add a few unsolicited comments, if you don’t mind.
I am descended from a long line of Quakers who assisted on the underground railroad. From what I have read, it seems they justified their law breaking by consistently pointing to the Constitution, which stated all men are created equal, as well as Paul’s later epistles asserting that “there is no more slave or free, for we are all one” (Galations 3:28). They appealed to what many here have already said: the moral absolutism that the conscience of our spirit is above the law of man. The experts of the law in Jesus’ day were constantly trying to trip him up with these same sort of questions. Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath? What does Moses say about divorce? When they asked him what the greatest law was, he answered “to love the Lord your God…and love your neighbor as yourself.” He also called them blind guides and hypocrites who would not see the kingdom of God. Why? Because they didn’t follow the greatest law of all. Those who stood against the evils of slavery, who broke man’s law and risked their own lives for their neighbors, followed the example and the teaching of Jesus.
Personally, I have trouble with many of Paul’s teachings. I do believe that all of scripture is given to us for education and spiritual growth. But the bottom line is that Paul, while being an incredible spokesman for the gospel, was a mere human. So I tend to weigh his words against the words and actions of Jesus himself. It is Jesus I want to emulate, not Paul.
Posted by: jennifer![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 23, 2006 4:05 PM
I agree, and it's these rationalisations that makes a mockery of Biblical inerrancy. In truth, the only evidence by which one can condemn slavery as an institution is extra-Biblical. The more honest position for people like David to take is simply to admit that God sees nothing wrong with slavery. After all, we're talking about someone who is quite willing to wipe out whole cities at a time.
And slavery's not something, like, say, gene therapy, where the Bible is etirely silent on the issue. There were ample opportunities to make the point that slavery is evil.
Posted by: tacitus![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 23, 2006 4:14 PM
God is Lord. Heaven is a Kingdom. Democratic notions of liberty probably don't fit comfortably into that scheme.
Posted by: mhojo![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 23, 2006 4:20 PM
Ed,
Yes it is very compelling to me. If one believes that Christ came to earth with the primary goal that all men should live free and have a good life, then it is perplexing that slavery was not condemned in unambiguous terms. But he came to proclaim the way to eternal life. Far from promising freedom or possessions or success to his disciples, he promised suffering and he commanded us to proclaim the gospel. Paul's sending Onesimus back to Philemon, as he did, is consistent with that message. He didn't send Onesimus back in chains, as a worthless sub-human, but like a "son," and appears to have promised to pay back Philemon what was stolen from him. In returning back, Onesimus provided a powerful testimony of faith in God and a powerful example of a Christian walk.
To me, the disconnect is fairly obvious. You (not just Ed) want God and Jesus to have a morality and priorities you would demonstrate if you were God. It doesn't work that way. If I were God, I'd like to think I'd proclaim universal salvation. And I'd probably decree that anything not harmful to someone else is acceptable. Instead God will clearly condemn some to eternal damnation and condemns hedonism. But I'm not free to say: I don't like that God I'm going to pick another.
Windy,
"Are these really the only possibilities? This is like the argument that the current Pope had "no choice" but to join the Wehrmacht."
How is my argument anything like that?
"And if Paul was so sure that slavery was just peachy for a Christian, let him go and be Philemon's slave instead.?"
It would have been difficult, since he was in prison.
Ginger Yellow,
"How very convenient for you. Not to mention the rather obvious contradiction with any number of parables and other of Christ's teachings."
What is convenient, and what precisely is in contradiction with what precise parable? And I'm still waiting for you to point out where I argued about the connection between atheism and moral relativism.
"I know you subscribe to a frankly bizarre, almost Calvinistic conception of Grace"
Almost Calvinistic!--now I am really insulted.
Tactus,
"Way to distort the issue, David. As Ed points out, all that's needed is a single, simple Bible verse that would condemn slavery and this particular issue would have never existed."
How did I distort the issue?
All that's needed? All that's needed? Sorry, I don't get to tell God what He needs to put in the bible. All I can do is study what He did put in. And Paul's teaching "slaves, obey your master" is entirely consistent with Christ's message, while at the same time in no way an endorsement of slavery.
Y'all are much like the Zealots of Jesus' time, who wanted him to do something, anything about their miserable social conditions --even trying to make him king (he ran away). Not only did he not do anything to improve their lot politically or economically, he may have precipitated the worsening of conditions for Palestine.
Posted by: David Heddle![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 23, 2006 4:51 PM
Obviously: What everyone wants is a biblical lesson that goes like this: slavery is very bad; all Christians are authorized to fight a holy war against it.
Hardly what "everyone" wants - just a plain, simple verse that condemns slavery in the same many as any of the dozens which condemn homosexuality, adultery, theft, coveting, etc. etc. etc.
So the New Testament is silent on the morality of slavery, I'm not going to argue with you on that. That just leaves all the passages in the Old Testament where God either condones slavery or commands His chosen people to take slaves. As far as I know, Jesus said nothing to contradict or invalidate those writings.
Posted by: tacitus![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 23, 2006 5:18 PM
David Heddle said:
Why not? I did.
Posted by: Jeff Hebert![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 23, 2006 5:22 PM
Actually, I'd be happy if you'd just admit that slavery, given ample evidence from the Old Testament, is an acceptable social institution according to God, since he appears to have encouraged the Jews to practice it. What Jesus did and didn't do is not really the issue.
Posted by: tacitus![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 23, 2006 5:23 PM
Posted by: Gretchen![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 23, 2006 5:46 PM
tacitus,
What we can say about the Old Testament is that the instructions for the Jews, not just for slavery but also for the slaughter of entire nations during the acquisition of the Promised Land, was for good, not evil.
In the New Testament, it is true we find no instruction from God to the Roman government to end slavery. We find no instruction from God to the Roman government to close brothels, either, yet we do not glean from that omission that Roman prostitution was acceptable. The point is, God saw no reason to go after the institution of slavery at that time. There is plenty of moral teaching to suggest that slave owners would be held accountable. That is why I cannot do what you ask: state that slavery is an acceptable institution, because it is not. I could not own a slave without violating God's commandment regarding how I treat my fellow man.
Let me try another approach, since the one I've been stating has fallen on deaf ears. Since slavery has ended (not really, but in the west, at least) and God is sovereign (everything that happens has been ordained) then God did, in fact, end slavery. He did so not by decreeing in AD 33 that it should be terminated, but, in an important part, I would argue, through the rise of Christianity in Europe and America.
Jeff,
"Why not? I did."
No doubt. Did you make him nicer than the God of the bible or meaner? How did you know which parts to keep and which parts to discard? Did you simply imagine how you would be if you were God, and made him like that, only in a grandfatherly way? Just curious.
Gretchen,
Same question for you.
Posted by: David Heddle![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 23, 2006 5:50 PM
To me, the disconnect is fairly obvious. You (not just Ed) want God and Jesus to have a morality and priorities you would demonstrate if you were God.
No, but if the Christian God existed, I would expect him to show at least some kind of consistent morality and priorities.
In returning back, Onesimus provided a powerful testimony of faith in God and a powerful example of a Christian walk.
Well, the story doesn't tell what actually happened afterwards. Maybe Onesimus took his chances elsewhere, once he found out that this new religion didn't follow through on all its promises in practice ("there is no longer slave or free...")
Instead God will clearly condemn some to eternal damnation and condemns hedonism. But I'm not free to say: I don't like that God I'm going to pick another.
I respect that, but personally I don't think we should worship such a nihilistic god even if he existed.
"Are these really the only possibilities? This is like the argument that the current Pope had "no choice" but to join the Wehrmacht."
How is my argument anything like that?
In that the imperfect moral choices of both Paul and Ratzinger are explained for the best, when plenty of ordinary people in similar situations have done a lot better.
Posted by: windy![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 23, 2006 5:58 PM
David,
What makes you think that God is more like the guy in the Bible than any other depiction of God? Why should God be a jealous being who tells his subjects to enslave and murder, who creates vast populations of humans he knows will be consigned to hell (which he created) by his ruling, rather than a nice being who saves everyone? Or, for that matter, why should God not be the ground of being? The universe itself? It's not like there is a shortage of more respectable and more realistic god concepts from which to choose.
I don't believe in a god. No concept of god is convincing to me, and the god of the Bible is especially unconvincing. "God" is not just a proper name, but a title for the being who is supposed to be most perfect. The God of the Bible, on the other hand, is far less perfect than a lot of mortal humans. I just find it insulting to the idea of God to think that that Jehovah fits the title.
Posted by: Gretchen![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 23, 2006 6:21 PM
And there we have it, folks. David's God is sovereign, and it doesn't matter what evils were/are prepetrated at his express command, it was all in the name of good.
Thank you, David, that was all that I was asking for. I'll leave it up to others to decide if this is a God they can worship.
Posted by: tacitus![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 23, 2006 6:28 PM
This discusion is fascinating, and I appreciate David stepping in. He has helped me to understand a lot of things I was uncleaer about. He also reinforced my own position.
That is that I believe in God, but I can't worship. God doesn't meet my moral standards.
Posted by: John Cercone![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 23, 2006 6:31 PM
Windy,
I don't know about Ratzinger, but I dispute that Paul could have "done a lot better". I think he did exactly what was right in furtherance of the kingdom.
Gretchen,
"What makes you think that God is more like the guy in the Bible than any other depiction of God? Why should God be a jealous being who tells his subjects to enslave and murder, who creates vast populations of humans he knows will be consigned to hell (which he created) by his ruling, rather than a nice being who saves everyone?"
Well, it's a fair question with a simple answer that you already provided: the bible says so. In other words, I have a basis for the attributes I ascribe to God. (Why I believe the bible is an entirely different question.) If the bible is fiction, then of course I'm wrong about God and am the most foolish of men. I just want to know how you form an image of God without the use of the bible. It's a serious question. My theory is already on the table: You'd make him/her just like you imagine you'd be, if you were God. Am I wrong?
Posted by: David Heddle![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 23, 2006 6:34 PM
David said:
My answer to your question would be that you are presenting a false dichotomy, implying that there are only two choices -- either the God of the Bible is the one true god or people just make up whatever strikes their fancy. The solution set, however, is not binary.
The most obvious alternative is that there is no God at all and the Bible is completely false from beginning to end. Another would be that there is in fact a God out there but that the Bible is an untrustworthy guide for knowing Him (the view of countless other religions in the world).
There are many other possibilities, of course, and ultimately we're all just guessing, even the ones of us who think we have a cheat sheet in the form of a holy book :-)
To bring this somewhat back on topic, this is why I think using the Bible as the basis of a legal or moral code is problematic. It is so ambiguous about so many fundamental things that it is next to useless as a guide. Just look at the bewildering array of Christian sects that have come to diametrically opposed conclusions based upon the exact same set of data.
Posted by: Jeff Hebert![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 23, 2006 6:38 PM
tacitus,
Is this a revelation to you? Do you not realize that every bible believing Christian would give the same answer, that God's instructions for genocide to Joshua were good, not evil? Or do you know some who say the omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent God screwed up on that occasion? To accept that it was good and not evil is not to say I fully understand it--I find it appalling in fact. However, I know that God is incapable of evil. This is basic stuff, I'm surprised your attitude is that you have elicited a confession--I would have admitted to this from the onset.
"I'll leave it up to others to decide if this is a God they can worship."
Actually, neither they nor you have a choice. You are not refusing to worship God because you have rationally weighed the options and decided that, no, he's not for you. You are not worshipping God because, at least at the moment, you cannot.
Posted by: David Heddle![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 23, 2006 6:41 PM
David,
Of course the Bible says so. The fact that I provided it shows that obviously it's not the answer to my question. It then splits into two further questions: 1) Why do you take the Bible to be true? and 2) Even if the Bible is true, why do you think the God in it is worthy of worship?
But we've discussed this before. You didn't provide a real answer then and I don't expect you to provide one now.
I don't form images of God. There are already plenty of images of God out there, and I don't believe in any of the ones I've heard (studying religion for enough time tends to do that to people). Either the evidence for their existence is unconvincing, or they do not strike me as being worthy of worship.
My point was that if you're going to believe in and worship a being for whom there is no real evidence, it might as well be a nice being.
Posted by: Gretchen![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 23, 2006 6:54 PM
Gretchen,
"But we've discussed this before. You didn't provide a real answer then and I don't expect you to provide one now."
Discussed what? Why I believe in the bible? What do you mean I haven't answered that? I've posted on it several times, for example:
http://helives.blogspot.com/2005_11_01_helives_archive.html#113335643451616135
"My point was that if you're going to believe in and worship a being for whom there is no real evidence, it might as well be a nice being."
That is an honest answer. Thank you.
Posted by: David Heddle![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 23, 2006 7:06 PM
David, most Bible-believing Christians ignore those passages and would prefer not to engage in debate when they are confronted by them.
You are an erudite, well-read person who has obviously thought long and hard about all these issues. Most Bible-believing Christians have what could be called a simple faith (not meant in a demeaning way) and would not know how to respond in a debate like this. You see it all the time on message boards, they simply shut up and disappear when people start asking the difficult questions.
Ah, there speaks a true Calvinist. Is this particular brand of salvation theology also part of the orthodox Christianity you mentioned a couple of days ago? Actually, on second thoughts, it might be better if you ignore that question. It's a little off topic.
Posted by: tacitus![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 23, 2006 7:09 PM
I don't see this as much of a problem for christians. I think it's relatively easy to keep one's faith while still knowing that the bible is a series of texts written by humans which, while containing wisdom, wasn't written by the hand of god. From there it's as simple as keeping the good and throwing out the bad, as you do with everthing else.
Even though I believe a lot of denominations claim inerrancy, its not a crucial part of belief as it is with the types of protestantism that we are exposed to in the U.S. I'm pretty sure Roman Catholic doctorine claims inerrancy while at the same time acknowledging the human authors. Same is true for the overlooked Eastern Orthodox church.
Posted by: Matthew![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 23, 2006 7:12 PM
Do you not realize that every bible believing Christian would give the same answer, that God's instructions for genocide to Joshua were good, not evil?
That's pretty Panglossian.
I don't have any Bible believing Christians at hand (whatever those are), but I'm sure there are some who would say
-Joshua could have lied or misinterpreted his revelation, or
-The story is a propaganda tale that was created later.
The latter would seem to be supported by the fact that the tribes that have supposedly been wiped from face of the earth, keep popping up time and again in the OT (like the Amalekites).
Posted by: windy![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 23, 2006 7:18 PM
Ed,
You wrote,
Are you saying, then, that your reasons for rejecting Christianity are not based on error (e.g., logical / factual contradictions, incorrect data, lies, conspiracy, etc.), but on the fact that you simply don't like what you see?
Rusty Lopez
Posted by: ImagoArt![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 24, 2006 1:57 AM
Rusty said:
No, he's saying he stopped believing in God because Duke lost tonight. How could there be a loving God in that kind of world?
On a more serious note, I see Rusty's reaction from a lot of Christians. I don't understand it. What else do we have but our senses, our feelings, our hearts, our intellect, our humanity, to use as tools for judging what is right and wrong, good and evil, real or unreal?
We're given a book and told we are to worship all sorts of behaviors in it that we find morally repulsive. We are told that these feelings of revulsion are false, and that the only good is following what is in this book. We are told that even though both reason and emotion cry out at the horror we find there, reason and emotion are useless tools to bring to bear in this matter. Somehow, in this one area of human endeavor, our normal faculties are deemed irrelevant and traitorous. We are expected to abandon everything that makes us human and to accept what in any other circumstance would be considered the vilest evil.
Do I reject Christianity in part because "I don't like what I see"? I can think of no charge I am more honored to plead guilty to.
Posted by: Jeff Hebert![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 24, 2006 2:36 AM
Rusty,
I would say that not liking God is actually a very good reason to think that the presentation of God you've been given is an error. When the supposed perfect creator arouses moral repugnance in an ordinary human being, there's something wrong-- either with the god depicted or the human examining him. If the problem is with the human, that forces us to conclude that the standards by which we humans morally judge each other are not suitable for judging God-- God must be an exception. But why? It is no more rational to think "God must have had his reasons for doing that thing which seems immoral to me" than to think "God is perfect, therefore he could not have done that immoral thing. There is something wrong with this presentation of him."
Posted by: Gretchen![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 24, 2006 2:51 AM
When the supposed perfect creator arouses moral repugnance in an ordinary human being, there's something wrong-- either with the god depicted or the human examining him.
Yeah but when you're scared out of your wits that you and your loved ones are going to be tortured forever in hell for thinking that "there's something wrong" then that's the defense mechanisms start kicking in. What would you do if you had a choice between either (a)burning in hell forever, or (b) kissing up to a big old horrible magic monster in total control of the fate of your afterlife?
Posted by: 386sx![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 24, 2006 3:15 AM
then that's the defense mechanisms start kicking in.
That should be: then that's when the defense mechanisms start kicking in.
Cheers!
Posted by: 386sx![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 24, 2006 3:18 AM
What we can say about the Old Testament is that the instructions for the Jews, not just for slavery but also for the slaughter of entire nations during the acquisition of the Promised Land, was for good, not evil.
Is God likely to issue more directives of this sort today? What would we make of someone who obeyed such an order?
Posted by: Nebogipfel![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 24, 2006 4:21 AM
Well, every single one of us are going to burn in hell eternally at the hands of some horrible magic monster, according to somebody's beliefs (that is, we're each a blasphemer according to at least one doctrine). So if you're going to worship a god, I'd think the best thing to do is live with integrity and worship a god bright enough to recognize that. At least that way you don't risk insulting him, and you get to keep your dignity besides.
Posted by: Gretchen![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 24, 2006 5:10 AM
My perspective on this is that the Bible had as it's old testament principle a consideration for the "indentured servitude" one could incur by doing wrong to another, and to last for a year and a day, as well as good ol' slavery. Not the fiefdom of servitude, but forever and eternal. Indeed, only a Jew could be such a slave. This was not the case for non-Jews, when you could throw the Torah out the window if you had a canaanite (philistine, phenoecian) slave. If we accept Biblical history as accurate, the Jews knew full well what both indentured servitude and full-on slavery was like. Yes, the Egyptians had slaves, as tribes and nations captured in battle were enslaved as a matter of nationbuilding and suppression of the populace, but the monument workers, by and large, were not slaves, and they would not have treated any other semite nation as worse than they and the citizens paying "tax" to build monuments and tombs. Or hell, get paid doing it.
But during the Roman era, prior to Constantine "converting," the Christian movement would certainly have had slaves, and would have kept them after as well, again, as a product of nation building. Slaves could earn some notoriety by rising through the gladiatorial ranks of popularity, but they were still slaves, and their lives were subject to whim, just as the Jews would have considered their own slaves (and not "servants", who even then were still not free to choose their own life, career, or even family).
If Paul's "suggestion" that people treat their slaves like family were followed, would they sleep in the same room, be offered the same food? If Paul had slaves would he have been so beneficent? Given the care and keeping of the children as a father or rabbi? I think not. Paul's "suggestion" of slave-treatment and moral argument for the keeping of slaves was in full keeping with Jewish tradition.
Posted by: Jaime Headden![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 24, 2006 6:47 AM
Mathhew
"From there it's as simple as keeping the good and throwing out the bad, as you do with everthing else."
How do you decide what is good and what is bad? I'd argue, once again, that all you can do is make God be like you'd be if you were God, except maybe taller and more distinguished looking. You will then throw out of the bible any parts that don't conform. Many people do that, you're in good company.
By the way, Ed and Jeff Herbert's reason for rejecting God and/or Christianity and/or the bible, because they don't like what they see, is spot-on (and biblical).
Nebogipfel,
Is God likely to issue more directives [to obliterate nations] of this sort today?
No (although of course I am just speculating). Part One of God's redemptive plan was to establish the Jews in the Promised Land. Why the Jews? Who knows? He chose Abraham for some reason that we cannot fathom. His instructions to Joshua were to wipe out the evil nations that stood in the way. Were these nations more wicked than the Jews? Not at all. The amazing thing is not that God wiped out those nations, but that he let the Jews survive.
(Just like today, the question should not be "why do bad things happen to good people?" but "why don't bad things happen to all of us, all the time?")
Part Two of God's redemptive plan is the finished work of Christ. The emphasis is on finished. There is no unfulfilled promise other than the fact the Christ will return. But that will mark the end of history. There is no unfinished business that would require the type of genocide we see in Joshua's military conquests.
Now, back to the question of the missing condemnation of Roman slavery.
I though about this in the shower, and here is the best way that I can describe why I think Paul didn't bother (or need) to give an explicit condemnation of Roman slavery.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that there are only two types of governments available for nations, A-ism and B-ism. Let's assume that A-ism is acceptable to God while B-ism is inherently evil.
Does the bible have to condemn B-ism explicity? Not if it is easily deduced from all fundamental teachings that the principles upon which B-ism rests are evil. We are rational intelligent beings, and God is not our nanny.
Now suppose Paul, touring country A, which practices Godly A-ism, encounters Bob, a refugee and a pagan from country B, a nation governed through B-ism.
What is Paul's reaction? I suspect he would praise God that Bob escaped tyranny. Then he would present the gospel to Bob.
Suppose Bob is converted to Christianity.
What is Paul to do with Bob? Have him join an armed militia of fellow expatriates? I don't think so.
One suggestion Paul might make to Bob is to return to his country and preach the gospel, even though it will certainly mean prison and possibly death.
Does that sound implausible? To me it does not. Yet at no time did Paul have to explicitly lecture on the evils of B-ism.
The story of Onesimus is analogous. Not perfectly so, for there are two additional pressures on Onesimus. One is that he broke the law (I suppose you could say the same about Bob) and the second is that Onesimus, it would seem, also stole from Philemon.
Posted by: David Heddle![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 24, 2006 7:59 AM
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that there are only two types of governments available for nations, A-ism and B-ism. Let's assume that A-ism is acceptable to God while B-ism is inherently evil. Does the bible have to condemn B-ism explicity? Not if it is easily deduced from all fundamental teachings that the principles upon which B-ism rests are evil.
What if B-ism practices genocide? Or A-ism? How can genocide be 'inherently evil' if God himself endorsed it?
One suggestion Paul might make to Bob is to return to his country and preach the gospel, even though it will certainly mean prison and possibly death.
Like that dude who is in trouble for converting to Christianity in Afghanistan. I'd assume that it was all right for him to break the law. So breaking the law to preach the Gospel is OK, but breaking the law to stop slavery or genocide is so-so?
Onesimus, it would seem, also stole from Philemon
Good for him, I'd say.
Posted by: windy![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 24, 2006 8:25 AM
David Heddle
I just wanted to thank you for coming here to beard the lion in his den, as it were. You've spent time and efforts on your beliefs, and it shows. You're one of the most well-reasoned Christians I've seen on these boards.
I'm just having trouble understanding some of your reasoning, though. You say that God commanding genocide in the promised land is "good", because God can only do good. What about the genocide in Rwanda? Is that good or evil? If you tell me God didn't command it, how could you possibly know? I assume you believe that your God is still active in the world -- perhaps the this is part of a new testament and the Hutu are God's new choosen people.
I'm also not quite sure what you mean when you say "God judges the heart, not the action"? Do mean that Torquemada, when he tortured Jews to death on the belief that they would be redeemed in heaven, that was a good act? If so, what possible meaning does this word "good" have?
How is this any different than moral relativism? By saying "God judges the heart" do you realize you're right next door to "Do what thou wilt is the whole of the law?"
I would like to suggest to you that the bible is not God's inerrant word; it is simply a book passed down by powerful men to further their own power. How do we know this? Because we have an inherent knowledge of what God actually thinks is good: he printed it across our hearts in the form of the innate morality, which tells us that "genocide" = "evil" and "torture" = "evil". What the bible does is convince us that "genocide" = "good" and "torture" = "good" so that we