Whenever you find something on Worldnutdaily labeled an "exclusive commentary", you can usually be assured that it's exclusive because it's so badly written and poorly reasoned that no one else would publish it. Such is the case with today's commentary by Mychal Massie entitled Morality Doesn't Evolve. It's badly written because it's written in that pseudo-highbrow style that uses words because they sound impressive, not because the resulting sentence is either eloquent or persuasive. To wit:
Minority rule is now the consensus notwithstanding the majority, and heretofore the laws hold differently.
It's difficult to tell which is worse in that convoluted sentence, the syntax or the sentiment. But the real absurdity lies in the very first paragraph of the article:
I recently heard a gentleman comment, "Morality doesn't evolve, it always has been." One need not be a genius to recognize the truth in that statement; but one must be either blind to shame or totally dishonest to deny its truth.
I submit, Mr. Massie, that I am neither blind to shame nor totally dishonest, yet I emphatically deny the truth of that statement and I will use his own preferred religious text, the Bible, to prove it.
Not only has our morality "evolved" since biblical days, it has evolved for the better. No firmer proof for this statement could be found than looking at what the bible teaches on two subjects, slavery and war. Under a biblical code of ethics, slavery is not only allowed but demanded and was instituted under the direct command of God in the Levitical laws. There is not a single verse in the bible condeming slavery, but many verses endorsing it. Biblical law established two types of slavery - indentured servitude (Israelites bound to a fellow Israelite to pay back a debt) and foreign slavery (non-Israelites who were either bought from a neighboring nation or taken in war). Indentured servants had to be freed after a period of time (either 6 years or during the year of jubilee), but foreign slaves were property that was owned forever and could be handed down from father to son. Leviticus 25:44-46:
Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
And it contains such charming laws as Exodus 21:20-21:
When a slave owner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner's property.
The New Testament is no better. Nowhere does Jesus himself condemn slavery, and Paul made very clear many times that Jesus' words about the brotherhood of man and loving one another did not extend to slaves. 1 Timothy 6:1-5 states:
Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be blasphemed. Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful to them on the ground that they are members of the church; rather they must serve them all the more, since those who benefit by their service are believers and beloved. Teach and urge these duties. Whoever teaches otherwise and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that is in accordance with godliness, is conceited, understanding nothing, and has a morbid craving for controversy and for disputes about words. From these come envy, dissension, slander, base suspicions, and wrangling among those who are depraved in mind and bereft of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain.
He also made clear that in obeying one's master, the slave is doing the will of God, in Ephesians 6:5-6:
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ; not only while being watched, and in order to please them, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart.
Clearly, our morality today is far advanced from biblical morality in regard to slavery. Now let's look at biblical morality as it concerns war.
The best example of biblical morality concerning war is Numbers 31. God directly commands Moses to attack Midian and kill all the men, women and male children, but to leave alive the virgin women and pass them out among the Israelites as the spoils of war. Verses 14-18:
And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, [with] the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle. And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
Under modern laws of war, this is the absolute height of savagery. Even Adolf Hitler, the very embodiment of evil in the 20th century, did not command his soldiers to kill every man, woman and child or to take the virgin women in conquered lands for themselves. Yet this happens many times in the bible, always at God's direct command. Clearly, again, our morality has evolved, and for the better.
By the way, this issue is probably the single biggest thing that led me to leave Christianity so many years ago. I realized that if someone today said that God had told them many of the things that the authors of the bible attributed to God, we would quite literally consider them insane. If a Hitler or Stalin claimed that God told them that it was okay to kill everyone in a neighboring country except the virgin women, to be taken as the spoils of war, we would consider that to be the very essence of insanity and savagery. Yet when Moses makes that same claim, no one blinks at it. Well, I blinked. I do not for a moment believe that God would command anyone to do something so clearly barbaric, not today, not yesterday and not ever. And no one, not even the staunchest fundamentalist, would disagree with me if it happened today. But they won't apply the same standards to biblical events and figures. At any rate, it should be clear to all but the most blinded that in regard to these two issues, slavery and war, our modern moral standards are entirely opposed, and infinitely superior, to biblical moral standards.
- Log in to post comments
And just think Ed, if you should pass away one of your brothers wont be forced to marry me LOL
Finally! Thank you! I've been saying for 50 years that there is no timeless ethic or morality in the Bible. The writers were simply reflecting a brutal and unsophisticated age. While I didn't fully realise how heinously inhumane the book was by modern standards until later, as an animal loving child I hated Samson for capturing 300 foxes, tying them together by their tails in pairs and then setting them on fire. I wasn't particularly happy with having an animal abuser for my Lord and Savior either. Remember the pigs? Of course, neither of these stories approach the human barbarity and suffering of slavery and war, but they did give a small child the impudence to question his fundamentalist mother's "truth".
And just think Ed, if you should pass away one of your brothers wont be forced to marry me LOL
LOL. And you should be very happy about that. I wouldn't wish any of my brothers on any woman!
Right on.
I've been meaning to blog on something similar: These passages from the Old Testament are only defensible if we put them in historical context. As we first emerged as human beings, essentially as Cro-Magnon cavemen, we existed in a very Hobbsean state of war. We truly knew very little, if anything (I'll leave it at very little) about right and wrong.
The Old Testament arguably represents a "step-up" from this state of war. The authors truly didn't know slavery was wrong, so how can we fault the human writers with that. But we know better now.
But to a fundamentalist, like WND author, those passages are eternally true...as true now as they were then. Viewed in this respect, those passages are truly Indefensible.
Kind of ironic: the only way to defend the Old Testament is thru Historicism, to understand that it got things wrong and to excuse the error by putting it in context, much like we would excuse Newton for his errors that Einstein later corrected.
The real irony, in my view, is how they lapse into the thing they claim to be opposing - moral relativism - in defending the biblical record. They say it was better than what came before, or that God had to "bring us along slowly" and it was still an improvement. That's a silly argument, of course. He didn't have to "bring us along slowly" when it came to worshipping other gods, or on pre-marital sex. Those were hard and fast rules. In a book packed with rules on every single minute aspect of life, God apparently glossed over that whole "don't own other people" thing. I don't buy that.
It is hardly "moral relativism" to defend the biblical record or to accept that a sovereign God chose to progressively regulate human free will.
Why? Remember the "fundamental" assumptions of the Bible: (1) Our creator is omnipotent, omnipresent and absolutely sovereign; (2) He chooses to self-limit His sovereignty by permitting some of His creatures (humans) to exercise free will (within limitations and without any potential for surprises); (3) the natural, default state of "free" humans is rebellion (a/k/a "original sin")and consequently they toil under a universal death sentence; (4) as a sovereign act of grace (not entitlement) God temporarily stays the sentence for most and provides many with a mechanism to choose to submit to His Authority (i.e. faith in Jesus Christ); (5) God further chooses to temporarily limit his sovereignty by engaging in a contest with another of his creations-- the rebellious angel Satan; (6) Satan, rejecting God's sovereignty, feels he can somehow prevail by deluding a majority of humans to abuse their free will, separating themselves from God; (7) the biblical message must functionally resonate among people of all levels of moral reasoning development (i.e. from primitive egocentrics, to legalists, to skeptics, to adherents of integrated, internalized universal principles)
Certainly, the foregoing are all matters of faith and the subject of much debate. However, within the parameters established by the Bible--in a gradual revelation spanning centuries--they are arguably consistent.
That God has permitted war--in fact even ordered war in the most brutal terms--isn't "relativism" when viewed in context. God chose not to dump Himself in the form of Jesus Christ into an unprepared world, reeling from freedom and otherwise ignorant of God's nature. Instead, he established, first, individual faith pioneers, then a chosen people, then a legal system to protect the people of faith, to establish acts of faith (the sacrificial system) which foreshadowed the sacrifice of Christ and to point out the futility of legalism as a means of approaching God. To protect and nurture the people of faith and "the law," he sometimes used "His people" as an instrument to execute His judgment on others. But He also used rebel peoples to execute against the people of faith. Remember all of the dead were formerly alive under a death sentence.
Ultimately, in the fullness of time, He placed Christ at the focal point and in the context He created. Christ's life and sacrifice derive a substantial part of their communicative function from their context.
God, of course, operates from a basis of unchanging principles rooted in both perfection and sovereignty. In the Bible, he contextualized these principles to fit the developmental level of the people. Thus, Moses was merely a developmental step toward Christ. But Christ was the final manifestation of God's redemptive plan. Paul expanded the principles taught by Christ and intellectually explained Christ's historical context.
It is undeniable that the Bible contains several levels of abstraction in its moral system. Some rules are obviously timeless, universal principles (i.e. don't lie, don't commit adultery); some are specific to existing situations (i.e. slavery rules for the fledgling faith during the hegemony of the Roman Empire); some are temporary (i.e. don't horde up "manna") None of this supports the charge of relativism. That collective application of the Christian principles in the Sermon on the Mount and of Col. 3:11-17 have lead over the course of several centuries to a higher prevailing standard of conduct (in some areas) than in A.D. 36-90 is hardly support for relativism, either.
Clearly, citing Stalin and Hitler as comparable to Moses is a meaningless canard. Although the 20th Century despots operated within the permissive limitations of the sovereignty of God--in essence they demonstrated the rejection of biblical morality and almost unlimited abuse of free will--there is no credible suggestion that they operated as anything other than a "hands off" demonstration of what happens when people of faith fail at their responsibilities.
I respect that in human freedom you likely disagree with all of the foregoing. However, I reject the defamation of Christian faith and biblical ethics as inherently inferior to derivative, modern, secular ethical systems or as essentially and meaninglessly relative.
I respect that in human freedom you likely disagree with all of the foregoing. However, I reject the defamation of Christian faith and biblical ethics as inherently inferior to derivative, modern, secular ethical systems or as essentially and meaninglessly relative.
Yes, I disagree with all of it. All the verbiage in the world does not change the basic fact that our moral views concerning slavery and war today are far advanced than the views found in the bible that were (allegedly) commanded directly by God. I find it astounding that you consider "don't lie" to be a "timeless, universal principle", but "don't own other people" something else. There are circumstances in which lying is entirely moral. No sane person would condemn those who hid Jews from the Nazis and lied to the SS troops who went door to door for violating this "timeless universal principle". But under no circumstances that I can envision is there a justification for owning another human being as property. This is not "defamation", it's rational thinking.
As an scientific evolutionist you are bound by method to observe the precursors of any change, even social ones. Your examples of "advanced" morality based on modern "rational thinking" above are not generated ex nihilo. Yet they are lifted from their context. As I wrote earlier, [t]hat collective application of the Christian principles in the Sermon on the Mount and of Col. 3:11-17 have lead over the course of several centuries to a higher prevailing standard of conduct (in some areas) than in A.D. 36-90 is hardly support for relativism . . . ."
Anyone familiar with the abolition movement will be aware that it was substantially generated and promoted by persons holding a Christian world view and who were applying their beliefs to an ethical problem. Furthermore, those who study biblical history will quickly discover that: (1) Hebrew treatment of slaves was revolutionary; (2) Accomodation of slavery among the First Century Church recognized a political and economic reality beyond the ability of the Church to immediately change; (3) one revolution at the heart of Christian morality is the rejection of caste or artificial distinction--e.g. Ephesians 6:
8 "because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free."
9 "And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him."
Of course, these historical conclusions are strawmen, because your beef is with God himself--how could a "just God" permit slavery when it was in His power to stop it? Of course any pain, any injustice, any imperfection in the human condition can be similarly thrown with indignation in the face of a "just God." I certainly don't presume to speak for God, nor do I speculate beyond what I can observe in the historical record. However, the record suggests that a final resolution of the slavery question is an issue God left for us as a developmental task--something for which we were to take responsibility. Something for which humans were to develop a more complete understanding based on aggregation of experience, guided of course by the maturation of Christian principles.
That God chose different levels of guidance for different abuses of human free will (e.g. specific rules on sexual conduct, less specific rules on economic conduct) is obviously within the potential choices of a sovereign God who entertains a tolerance for limited autonomy of His creation. Furthermore, one should not lose sight of why the law existed in the first place--not so much as to specify all human conduct as to show the impossibility of independent perfection, the need for Divine grace and for a personal relationship with God. See Rm. 7:7 "I would not have known what sin was except through the law." Regulating every minute aspect of human freedom would at some point become cumulative as to this primary objective.
Under purely rational review, slavery has at times been absolutely logical. Other than transient economic arguments and the categorical imperative (which is arguably a secularized idea from Jesus), slavery is not inherently irrational. One could argue that certain realities of modern life (i.e. day laborers, migrant workers) aren't substantially different than slavery. Thus, "rational thought" is hardly a guarantee of human liberty or moral action.
Your suggestion about lying to the SS suffers from the assumptions of excessive legalism. Not bearing false witness (we say "not lying") is a universal principle. So is resting on the Sabbath and obeying the secular authorities. Yet we see that when Jesus was confronted with a sick person on the Sabbath, He "worked" in defiance of the indigenous authorities. Did that make Him a relativist or a "sinner?" No. It merely suggested that the interface between conflicting univeral values isn't adequately addressed through rigid, narrow, preferential applications.
In application to the SS question, does biblical morality require self-incrimination, total cooperation with evil secular authorities during a time of war, or even permit active deception? To answer this complex fact pattern by merely reciting "don't lie" as the only guiding principle is, frankly, sophomoric. However, to suggest that an active seeker of God operating under the constraints of biblical morality would be unable to do otherwise substantially misrepresents the thrust of Christian morality. Clearly, some Christians believed it was their duty to accept the "penalties" unjustly imposed by the Nazis (Dietrich Bonhoffer immediately springs to mind). Other parts of the Body of Christ were called to actively resist. To authoritatively assert that either was absolutely correct or positively "sinful" (immoral) goes beyond the purview of ex post facto human judgment. That is God's job.
Again, your real beef is with God--How could God knowingly permit Nazi terror in the first place? But the real question is why does God ever allow negative consequences of free will? The answers to these questions are not as simple as you seem to imply but are apparent in the knowledge base of man.
As an scientific evolutionist you are bound by method to observe the precursors of any change, even social ones.
Sorry, that's nonsense. Evolutionary theory deals with biological geneology, not with changes in ideas. Even if it's a good idea to observe precursors in observing how ideas change over time (and of course, it is), to claim that one is "bound by method" to apply the kinds of analysis one uses in determining how life evolved to an entirely different type of question is just silly. You seem to be very fond of using excessive verbiage to make very simple points.
Anyone familiar with the abolition movement will be aware that it was substantially generated and promoted by persons holding a Christian world view and who were applying their beliefs to an ethical problem.
And anyone familiar with that history also knows that those on the other side, those defending the institution of slavery, also held a Christian worldview and were applying their beliefs, and the clear statements found in the bible, to the question of slavery. There is not one single verse that even implies that slavery is morally wrong. There are, however, dozens of verses commanding it and saying that it was clearly instituted by God.
Furthermore, those who study biblical history will quickly discover that: (1) Hebrew treatment of slaves was revolutionary;
And this is the moral relativism defense that I referred to in my comment above. One might argue that Hebrew slavery was a little bit better than the way slavery was practiced by other cultures, but the difference is still very slight. Slaves were property, passed on from generation to generation. If the slaves had children, those children were also property. A master was free to beat their slave, even to the point of death, as long as the slave lived a day or two between the beating and the actual death. This is still a monstrous institution by any sane measure. This is either right or wrong. To claim that it's okay because it was slightly better than what others have done is moral relativism, which I'm sure you condemn.
(2) Accomodation of slavery among the First Century Church recognized a political and economic reality beyond the ability of the Church to immediately change
Nonsense. The bible says nothing whatsoever about this being a concession to a reality the church could not change. If that was the case, either Jesus or Paul could simply have said, "Slavery is a great moral evil. We cannot force the powers that be to eliminate slavery, but followers of Christ must not own slaves and we must take a strong moral stand against this horrible practice." Neither did so. In fact, Paul says quite the opposite. Paul addresses slaves who are owned by "believing masters" who are members of the Christian church and tells them that they must "serve all the more" because their masters are Christians. Paul's overriding purpose in writing his epistles was to teach the early Christians what it means to live a Christian life, how to conduct themselves, yet he says not a single word to those "believing masters" to tell them that slavery is wrong. Paul certainly didn't agree that the "collective application of the Christian principles in the Sermon on the Mount" applied to slavery. I simply do not accept that God would inspire Paul to write letter after letter advising Christians on how to conduct themselves, how to treat other people and how to live as a follower of Christ - guidelines that governed the most minute and irrelevant aspects of the Christian's life, down to how they dress or wear their hair - and somehow neglect to mention that they must not participate in the evils of slavery.
Of course, these historical conclusions are strawmen, because your beef is with God himself--how could a "just God" permit slavery when it was in His power to stop it?
No, that is absolutely not my beef. My complaint is not with God because I do not believe that God ordered any of this. My beef is with those who claimed, falsely in my view, that God accepts, ordains and commands slavery, or ever did.
That God chose different levels of guidance for different abuses of human free will (e.g. specific rules on sexual conduct, less specific rules on economic conduct) is obviously within the potential choices of a sovereign God who entertains a tolerance for limited autonomy of His creation.
And that is exactly my point. There are hundreds of commandments in the bible, edicts allegedly issued by God that regulate every tiny facet of our lives, from who we can have sex with (and when) to how we can wear our hair to what kind of fabrics we can wear to what we can eat. Yet not a single word against slavery, which any reasonable person would consider a far greater evil than mixing fabrics or premarital sex. You believe that not only did God choose not to tell the world that slavery was wrong (while making rules against far less serious offenses), he chose to command his followers to do it and set up a system of rules whereby they were allowed to beat those slaves to the point of death as long as the death didn't happen too quickly afterwards. I don't believe God did any such thing. You believe in a God who "entertains a tolerance for the limited autonomy" to own other human beings and beat them viciously, but entertains no tolerance for limited autonomy to choose to have sex with other consenting adults. Sorry, I don't buy that. I couldn't buy it when I was a Christian, which is one of the major reasons I am no longer one.
Furthermore, one should not lose sight of why the law existed in the first place--not so much as to specify all human conduct as to show the impossibility of independent perfection, the need for Divine grace and for a personal relationship with God. See Rm. 7:7 "I would not have known what sin was except through the law."
And yet, God doesn't bother to tell them that owning slaves is a sin. A million other, mostly irrelevant, things are sins, but not owning and beating another human being. Indeed, how could Paul have believed that slavery was a sin? God specifically commanded it and explicitly allowed such beatings without punishment.
Your suggestion about lying to the SS suffers from the assumptions of excessive legalism.
Nonsense. You were the one who declared this as a "universal moral principle". I don't think it's universal at all. I think it's advisable. I think it's true most of the time in most circumstances. But not universally. That is quite the opposite of "excessive legalism", isn't it?
Again, your real beef is with God--How could God knowingly permit Nazi terror in the first place? But the real question is why does God ever allow negative consequences of free will?
I have not mentioned the problem of free will at all, nor do I think the problem of free will is much of a problem. My argument here has precisely nothing to do with free will. And for the second time, my beef is not with God because I do not believe that God said the things the bible claims he said on these subjects. My "beef" is with the false claims made about God in this regard, and with the ad hoc rationalizations used to explain away the obvious.
"As an scientific evolutionist you are bound by method to observe the precursors of any change, even social ones."
ED: Sorry, that's nonsense. Evolutionary theory deals with biological geneology, not with changes in ideas. Even if it's a good idea to observe precursors in observing how ideas change over time (and of course, it is), to claim that one is "bound by method" to apply the kinds of analysis one uses in determining how life evolved to an entirely different type of question is just silly. You seem to be very fond of using excessive verbiage to make very simple points.
Response: Ignoring the unnecessary ad hominem, your conclusion is unsupported. Why would it be better to review the record with respect to physical "theory" (biology) but ignore as "silly" the developmental record and context of moral "theory?" Consistency would suggest similar intellectual approaches.
"Anyone familiar with the abolition movement will be aware that it was substantially generated and promoted by persons holding a Christian world view and who were applying their beliefs to an ethical problem."
ED: And anyone familiar with that history also knows that those on the other side, those defending the institution of slavery, also held a Christian worldview and were applying their beliefs, and the clear statements found in the bible, to the question of slavery.
Response: And if a scientist misapplies evidence to an inaccurate conclusion, does that raise question to the contributive value of the entire scientific community? Your observation does not rebut the fact Christians drove the abolition debate, nor does it rebut the occasional inadequacies of "rational thought" as an independent method of determining values.
ED: There is not one single verse that even implies that slavery is morally wrong.
Response:
Nehemiah 5
4 Still others were saying, "We have had to borrow money to pay the king's tax on our fields and vineyards. 5 Although we are of the same flesh and blood as our countrymen and though our sons are as good as theirs, yet we have to subject our sons and daughters to slavery. Some of our daughters have already been enslaved, but we are powerless, because our fields and our vineyards belong to others."
6 When I heard their outcry and these charges, I was very angry
Hebrews 2
14 Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death--that is, the devil-- 15 and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death.
ED: There are, however, dozens of verses commanding it and saying that it was clearly instituted by God.
Response: I addressed this point in my second post. However, I wouldn't say that verses recognizing the reality of slavery--or even the economic and social viability of the practice, if any--"command" slavery. But if one accepts the concept of a sovereign God, then all evil exists because He permits it. Of course, without the ability to make at least some choice against God, free will is wholly illusory.
"Furthermore, those who study biblical history will quickly discover that: (1) Hebrew treatment of slaves was revolutionary;"
ED: And this is the moral relativism defense that I referred to in my comment above. One might argue that Hebrew slavery was a little bit better than the way slavery was practiced by other cultures, but the difference is still very slight. Slaves were property, passed on from generation to generation.
Response: Development of moral law over time is not relativism. Coexisting situational flip-flops are. Obviously, you choose to ignore the Pauline development of slave law. Furthermore, you inaccurately state the Mosaic law, at least with respect to Hebrew slaves:
Exodus 21:1 "If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him."
ED: If the slaves had children, those children were also property. A master was free to beat their slave, even to the point of death, as long as the slave lived a day or two between the beating and the actual death. This is still a monstrous institution by any sane measure.
RESPONSE: One would assume that the Hebrews were aware of the "monstrousness" of slavery after 400 years of Egyptian captivity. However, your assumption about "any sane measure" vastly overstates the limits of human rationality. It has only been a brief moment of history wherein any such consensus has existed. In fact, rationality can (and has often) lead to social darwinism as easily as it can to your conclusions. It depends on what assumptions are fed into the rational model.
ED: This is either right or wrong. To claim that it's okay because it was slightly better than what others have done is moral relativism, which I'm sure you condemn.
Response: Obviously I never said it was "okay." I did say that God (or as you assert, sans evidence, Moses, Jesus, Paul) did not absolutely prohibit it. Such a result may puzzle you, but is fully consistent with the concept of a sovereign God. However, Paul did teach a "ratchet" form of morality--if we know something is wrong, but do it any way, then it is sin. Furthermore, the New Testament clearly teaches progressive responsibility--e.g. "to whom much is given, much is required" and accountablity proportional to our moral development. Therefore, as one becomes more like Christ (sanctification), things that seemed "okay" at more primitive levels of moral reasoning will appear like the ugly, festering blemishes on our character that they actually are. In other words, God is gracious enough to not confront us with all our imperfection at once. He is an incrementalist in some respects.
ED: (2) Accomodation of slavery among the First Century Church recognized a political and economic reality beyond the ability of the Church to immediately change
Nonsense. The bible says nothing whatsoever about this being a concession to a reality the church could not change. If that was the case, either Jesus or Paul could simply have said, "Slavery is a great moral evil. We cannot force the powers that be to eliminate slavery, but followers of Christ must not own slaves and we must take a strong moral stand against this horrible practice."
Response: And attacking the economic structure of the Roman Empire would have completely gone without notice or comment from the powers that be? You seem to think that Jesus and Paul should have injected 19th Century Western conclusions into their rhetoric and the apparent failure to do so means that both were frauds. Clearly, both chose the battles they thought were necessary to their primary objective--which was not abolition of slavery. Jesus didn't teach that military dictatorships were wrong ("give unto Caesar what is Caesar's . . . .") So does that mean that He automatically approved of brutal totalitarianism? Of course not!
ED: Neither did so. In fact, Paul says quite the opposite. Paul addresses slaves who are owned by "believing masters" who are members of the Christian church and tells them that they must "serve all the more" because their masters are Christians. Paul's overriding purpose in writing his epistles was to teach the early Christians what it means to live a Christian life, how to conduct themselves, yet he says not a single word to those "believing masters" to tell them that slavery is wrong.
RESPONSE: No, instead Paul taught the slaves were equal in the sight of God to their Masters. If one seriously applies this principle, wouldn't the problems of slavery you complain of be virtually eliminated? Of course the alternative would be to divert attention from the real isses concerning Paul by going on a foolish jihad against slavery. If the Christians suddenly freed the impoverished slaves, what would have happened? It's not as if they would have been released into 21st Century America. Wouldn't most have just ended up as debt slaves to harsh, non-Christian masters? Wouldn't some have died of starvation and privation? Wouldn't such radical action have brought down even more persecution on the fledgling church? Such speculation is useless, however, because God didn't direct Paul to divert resources on this fight (or as you imply, direct Paul to say anything).
Ed: Paul certainly didn't agree that the "collective application of the Christian principles in the Sermon on the Mount" applied to slavery.
Response: my second post disagrees with this speculative assertion. However, regardless of what Paul agreed with or did not agree with, Christians after Paul have matured in their understanding of Christian morality. Even a secular rationalist cannot dispute this.
ED: I simply do not accept that God would inspire Paul to write letter after letter advising Christians on how to conduct themselves, how to treat other people and how to live as a follower of Christ - guidelines that governed the most minute and irrelevant aspects of the Christian's life, down to how they dress or wear their hair - and somehow neglect to mention that they must not participate in the evils of slavery.
Response; That's your choice. I object to your somewhat superficial characterization of Pauline ethics. The vast majority of the Pauline letters were written as RESPONSES to specific questions (the question letters were not preserved for the canon of scripture). To assert that Paul was a comprehensive or a systematic theologian and moralist is not supported by the biblical record.
"Of course, these historical conclusions are strawmen, because your beef is with God himself--how could a "just God" permit slavery when it was in His power to stop it?"
ED: No, that is absolutely not my beef. My complaint is not with God because I do not believe that God ordered any of this. My beef is with those who claimed, falsely in my view, that God accepts, ordains and commands slavery, or ever did.
RESPONSE: So God hates slavery as a universal evil, yet lets it flourish--arguably even in His name-- for thousands of years? Yet all you are concerned about is that God's name was misappropriated by unscrupulous or self-deluded holymen? I'm not buying it. You are rationalizing your way around the real issue by focusing on one that somehow lets God off-the-hook in your mind. Either that or your ideas about God are very vague, inconsistent and primitive.
"That God chose different levels of guidance for different abuses of human free will (e.g. specific rules on sexual conduct, less specific rules on economic conduct) is obviously within the potential choices of a sovereign God who entertains a tolerance for limited autonomy of His creation."
ED: And that is exactly my point. There are hundreds of commandments in the bible, edicts allegedly issued by God that regulate every tiny facet of our lives, from who we can have sex with (and when) to how we can wear our hair to what kind of fabrics we can wear to what we can eat. Yet not a single word against slavery, which any reasonable person would consider a far greater evil than mixing fabrics or premarital sex.
Response: of course this overstates and misses the central points of the law's riason d etre. You are too focused on the immediate, temporal consequenses of actions as the measure of their wrongfulness. Textbook legalistic reasoning. I dispute the conclusion that the Bible regulates "every tiny facit of our lives."
Ed: You believe that not only did God choose not to tell the world that slavery was wrong (while making rules against far less serious offenses), he chose to command his followers to do it and set up a system of rules whereby they were allowed to beat those slaves to the point of death as long as the death didn't happen too quickly afterwards. I don't believe God did any such thing.
Response: In fact, you seem to believe God did even LESS than that! You apparently believe He did nothing with respect to the problem of evil.
Ed: You believe in a God who "entertains a tolerance for the limited autonomy" to own other human beings and beat them viciously,
Response: Mischaracterizes and trivializes my position but let's assume arguendo your're accurate.
Ed: but entertains no tolerance for limited autonomy to choose to have sex with other consenting adults. Sorry, I don't buy that.
Response: Now we finally get to your real issue. You don't really care a whit about slavery. It's all about the strict limits on sex. I, of course, fully accept biblical standards for sexual morality and can see legions of negative consequenses in society because of those who have adopted the "Morality of Consent." BTW, could someone morally consent to being a slave?
(Galatians 5:1 It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.)
ED: I couldn't buy it when I was a Christian, which is one of the major reasons I am no longer one.
Response: Your choice. However I believe you were never really a Christian. (I don't see any point in reciting my support for same because you do not accept the validity of the source. We'll just have to disagree on this point. God will someday clarify one or both of us on this point. Given the risks to "Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess . . . ." I'll throw in with Pascal on this gamble. Not much downside risk . . . .)
"Furthermore, one should not lose sight of why the law existed in the first place--not so much as to specify all human conduct as to show the impossibility of independent perfection, the need for Divine grace and for a personal relationship with God. See Rm. 7:7 "I would not have known what sin was except through the law."
ED: And yet, God doesn't bother to tell them that owning slaves is a sin. A million other, mostly irrelevant, things are sins,
Response: How do you determine what is "mostly irrelevant?" By what you perceive to be the "damages?" By what a plurality of other humans accept? By majority vote? By the musings of five old fogies in black robes?
ED: but not owning and beating another human being. Indeed, how could Paul have believed that slavery was a sin? God specifically commanded it and explicitly allowed such beatings without punishment.
Response: Progressive revelation . . . sanctification through application of Christ's teachings . . . developmental task . . . maturation. Not much point in repeating it since you seem to assume Biblical morality and human consciousness did not develop over time.
"Your suggestion about lying to the SS suffers from the assumptions of excessive legalism."
ED: Nonsense. You were the one who declared this as a "universal moral principle". I don't think it's universal at all. I think it's advisable. I think it's true most of the time in most circumstances. But not universally. That is quite the opposite of "excessive legalism", isn't it?
Response: You missed my point. You tried to box me in by forcing a false dilemma--sin by lying or obey God and give up the Jews. My point was that universal moral principles must co-exist with other universal moral principles and that application sometimes isn't mechanical (on the other hand some situations--such as whether to hump your neighbor's wife--don't seem to have any complexity at all). This does not deny the universality of any of the principles in question--that is precisely why they are principles--because they must fit together without the limitations of legalistic application. Furthermore, you ignore my conclusion that while we should do the best we can to act like Christ in all situation, it is God who ultimately determines whether our choices are morally correct or are in error.
BTW, if telling the truth is merely "advisable," Why? From a purely rational standpoint, wouldn't lying always be "advisable" if no one is injured, nothing bad results, and one's credibility isn't damaged by being caught? And why should we presume you are telling the truth?
"Again, your real beef is with God--How could God knowingly permit Nazi terror in the first place? But the real question is why does God ever allow negative consequences of free will?"
Ed: I have not mentioned the problem of free will at all, nor do I think the problem of free will is much of a problem. My argument here has precisely nothing to do with free will.
Response: of course it isn't because your concept of God seems to lack definition. He's merely a powerless spaceholding variable for you. But a serious analysis of this issue implicates--at a minimum--the questions of free will, evil, human epistemology and ethics, and the nature of God.
ED: And for the second time, my beef is not with God because I do not believe that God said the things the bible claims he said on these subjects. My "beef" is with the false claims made about God in this regard, and with the ad hoc rationalizations used to explain away the obvious.
Response: Again, your choice. Because this is your forum, you will have the last word. May God bless you (and I believe He has sufficient power to do so, if He so chooses) in your search for truth.
Ignoring the unnecessary ad hominem, your conclusion is unsupported. Why would it be better to review the record with respect to physical "theory" (biology) but ignore as "silly" the developmental record and context of moral "theory?" Consistency would suggest similar intellectual approaches.
First, there was no ad hominem there. I made an observation about your debating technique. I did not use that observation to deny the validity of any of your arguments. Hence, no ad hominem. I suggest you learn what that term actually means before throwing it around.
Second, I didn't say it was silly to say that you should look at context and development of moral ideas. In fact, I said that makes sense. I said it was silly to claim that because one looks at geneological factors in biological evolution one is therefore "bound by method" to do so. Your reading comprehension skills appear to need some work.
...snipping out the section where you do not even attempt to reply to my argument that both sides in the slavery abolition debate were Christians, but only the pro-slavery side actually had the bible on their side...
I made the argument that there is not a single verse in the bible against slavery. You cited two verses:
Nehemiah 5
4 Still others were saying, "We have had to borrow money to pay the king's tax on our fields and vineyards. 5 Although we are of the same flesh and blood as our countrymen and though our sons are as good as theirs, yet we have to subject our sons and daughters to slavery. Some of our daughters have already been enslaved, but we are powerless, because our fields and our vineyards belong to others."
6 When I heard their outcry and these charges, I was very angry
This is referring to enslavement OF the Israelites, not BY the Israelites. Of course, according to the bible, God was opposed to the Israelites being enslaved, that's why he freed them from Egyptian slavery. But he then commanded slavery of other non-Israelites. This is not a verse against slavery, it's only a verse against slavery for one group, who were then empowered to take slaves of their own.
Hebrews 2
14 Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death--that is, the devil-- 15 and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death.
Oh come on, you aren't really going to claim that this actually refers to actual slavery, are you? If so, your reading comprehension skills are going to be in even more doubt. When it refers to those who are "held in slavery by their fear of death", it's talking about a metaphorical slavery, being held by one's fear, not about actual ownership of another person. For crying out loud, you can't really be this intellectually dishonest, can you?
ED: There are, however, dozens of verses commanding it and saying that it was clearly instituted by God.
Response: I addressed this point in my second post. However, I wouldn't say that verses recognizing the reality of slavery--or even the economic and social viability of the practice, if any--"command" slavery.
And I already answered this argument. There is no mention whatsoever in the bible of slavery as a reluctant reality that couldn't be gotten rid of. Not a single verse implying that while God doesn't like it, he knows he has to stamp it out slowly, a bit at a time. Not a single verse saying that there is anything at all immoral about slavery. And of course, you're entirely wrong that they don't "command" slavery. Look at Leviticus 25:44-46:
It doesn't say "I don't really want you to do this, but if you're going to, here are the rules". It says, "You shall buy slaves" - not can, but shall, i.e. will. But even if it only said you can buy slaves, that is still a clear endorsement of slavery, isn't it? You want to split hairs over whether it's fair to say God "commands" slavery, but you miss the obvious truth.
Development of moral law over time is not relativism. Coexisting situational flip-flops are. Obviously, you choose to ignore the Pauline development of slave law.
Not only did I not ignore Paul's words on slavery, I quoted them extensively. Again, one has to wonder about your reading comprehension skills.
Furthermore, you inaccurately state the Mosaic law, at least with respect to Hebrew slaves:
Exodus 21:1 "If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him."
Not only did I not "inaccurately state" that with respect to Hebrew slaves, I made that exact point in my original post:
Once again, you have demonstrated that you either don't bother to read the posts you're responding to, or you are incapable of understanding them. I stated exactly what you claim I didn't state.
I'll answer the rest of this from my other computer shortly.
Response continued:
ED: If the slaves had children, those children were also property. A master was free to beat their slave, even to the point of death, as long as the slave lived a day or two between the beating and the actual death. This is still a monstrous institution by any sane measure.
RESPONSE: One would assume that the Hebrews were aware of the "monstrousness" of slavery after 400 years of Egyptian captivity.
Why would one assume that? If they were aware of it, they wouldn't have done the same thing to other people. And God, according to the bible, didn't bother to tell them how monstrous it was. This is a non-response.
ED: This is either right or wrong. To claim that it's okay because it was slightly better than what others have done is moral relativism, which I'm sure you condemn.
Response: Obviously I never said it was "okay." I did say that God (or as you assert, sans evidence, Moses, Jesus, Paul) did not absolutely prohibit it.
I love how you change the wording to make it less accurate. It isn't merely the case that God didn't "absolutely prohibit it" - he didn't prohibit it at all, he endorsed it and commanded it. There is not one word against it anywhere in the bible. Nowhere does it say that owning other human beings is wrong. Nowhere. It isn't even implied. Ever. This is something far different from "he didn't absolutely prohibit it".
Such a result may puzzle you, but is fully consistent with the concept of a sovereign God.
Uh, I don't know how to tell you this, but anything is consistent with the concept of a sovereign God. An omnipotent God can do anything he wants to. This, again, is simply a non-response. It doesn't mean anything at all.
However, Paul did teach a "ratchet" form of morality--if we know something is wrong, but do it any way, then it is sin.
So where is there any verse at all, any statement from Paul, that owning another human being is a slave? On what possible biblical basis could he have concluded that slavery was wrong, given that every single verse on the subject in the bible is pro-slavery?
The bible says nothing whatsoever about this being a concession to a reality the church could not change. If that was the case, either Jesus or Paul could simply have said, "Slavery is a great moral evil. We cannot force the powers that be to eliminate slavery, but followers of Christ must not own slaves and we must take a strong moral stand against this horrible practice."
Response: And attacking the economic structure of the Roman Empire would have completely gone without notice or comment from the powers that be? You seem to think that Jesus and Paul should have injected 19th Century Western conclusions into their rhetoric and the apparent failure to do so means that both were frauds.
No one said anything about "attacking the economic structure of the Roman Empire". I said that they never said that there was anything wrong or sinful about slavery. Not a word, not even a hint to that effect. They each took strong stands on other subjects that upset the Roman empire, didn't they? And my argument has nothing to do with whether Jesus or Paul are frauds. My argument is simply that the bible is pro-slavery from beginning to end and that that position is morally inferior to our stance on that issue today. Period.
ED: Neither did so. In fact, Paul says quite the opposite. Paul addresses slaves who are owned by "believing masters" who are members of the Christian church and tells them that they must "serve all the more" because their masters are Christians. Paul's overriding purpose in writing his epistles was to teach the early Christians what it means to live a Christian life, how to conduct themselves, yet he says not a single word to those "believing masters" to tell them that slavery is wrong.
RESPONSE: No, instead Paul taught the slaves were equal in the sight of God to their Masters. If one seriously applies this principle, wouldn't the problems of slavery you complain of be virtually eliminated? Of course the alternative would be to divert attention from the real isses concerning Paul by going on a foolish jihad against slavery.
LOL. You are absolutely insistent on building such straw men. I didn't say that Paul should have gone on a "foolish jihad" against slavery. I said that the bible, including the letters of Paul, condones slavery from beginning to end, that there is not a single verse that indicates that slavery is wrong. Period. It really is that simple, and all your dodging does not change that fact. You can rationalize it away, or try to, but that simple fact does not change. You engage in special pleading, where on this one subject God had to "ratchet up" our moral sense, yet you don't say that in the hundreds of cases of far less serious moral issues where he bluntly says "This is wrong, don't do it".
However, regardless of what Paul agreed with or did not agree with, Christians after Paul have matured in their understanding of Christian morality. Even a secular rationalist cannot dispute this.
And I would argue that their morality evolved to be far superior to the morality of Paul and the other authors of the bible. And a few of them, like you, attempt to disingenuously read modern morality back into the bible when the obvious truth is that they are instead a rejection of biblical morality.
ED: No, that is absolutely not my beef. My complaint is not with God because I do not believe that God ordered any of this. My beef is with those who claimed, falsely in my view, that God accepts, ordains and commands slavery, or ever did.
RESPONSE: So God hates slavery as a universal evil, yet lets it flourish--arguably even in His name-- for thousands of years? Yet all you are concerned about is that God's name was misappropriated by unscrupulous or self-deluded holymen? I'm not buying it. You are rationalizing your way around the real issue by focusing on one that somehow lets God off-the-hook in your mind. Either that or your ideas about God are very vague, inconsistent and primitive.
No, my ideas about God just aren't your ideas about God. I don't believe that God (the creator of the universe) takes any interest at all in what happens to human beings. I don't believe that God has ever given a revelation to anyone, least of all to those who claim that he commands them to enslave and kill. I believe absolutely that his name has been used as an excuse by unscruplous or self-deluded "holy men". When Paul Hill says God told him to kill an abortion doctor in Florida, he is either delusional or lying; the same is true of Moses and every other person in history who has made such claims, in my view. There is nothing vague, inconsistent or primitive about that view of God. Indeed, it is your ideas of God are inconsistent and primitive. You believe God is a God of love, yet you also believe that he commanded genocide and slavery. If that isn't inconsistent, then nothing is.
Now we finally get to your real issue. You don't really care a whit about slavery. It's all about the strict limits on sex.
Okay, this has reached a point where you're simply an irritant. You don't know the first thing about what I care about and dont' care about and this kind of presumptuous bullshit is only going to piss me off. The comparison I made was between two moral issues, one of which is infinitely more important than the other, yet you believe God took a strong and dogmatic stand against the lesser one while endorsing the far greater evil. THAT is the real issue, and I strongly recommend you dropping the armchair psychology crap because I will not tolerate it.
Yes our beef is with "God," -- if you believe that God could possibly think that coveting thy neighbors wife to be worse than slavery...which if you take the Bible literally, it appears you would have to.
If the Old Testament is the literal word of God then the Universe is one big comsic joke, governed by a sky-God with the mentality of a 4-year-old who would wipe out his creation (Man) in a moment of frustration, much the same way that a toddler would smash his toys (i.e. the Flood) in a fit of anger. That we would think higher of God evidences our optimism.
ED:"[T]hat's nonsense . . . You seem to be very fond of using excessive verbiage to make very simple points. . . .Your reading comprehension skills appear to need some work. . . . Once again, you have demonstrated that you either don't bother to read the posts you're responding to, or you are incapable of understanding them. . . .
I made an observation about your debating technique. I did not use that observation to deny the validity of any of your arguments. Hence, no ad hominem. I suggest you learn what that term actually means before throwing it around."
Response: As I said, your forum, so you get the last word. However, I must say that I am quite cognizant of what an ad hominem argument is:
"An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. [note the elements] Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:
Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) [a key qualifier] have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
Example of Ad Hominem
Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."
Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one attempts to attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making it simply out of self interest. In some cases, this fallacy involves substituting an attack on a person's circumstances (such as the person's religion, political affiliation, ethnic background, etc.). The fallacy has the following forms:
Person A makes claim X.
Person B asserts that A makes claim X because it is in A's interest to claim X.
Therefore claim X is false.
Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on A's circumstances.
Therefore X is false.
A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy because a person's interests and circumstances have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made. While a person's interests will provide them with motives to support certain claims, the claims stand or fall on their own. It is also the case that a person's circumstances (religion, political affiliation, etc.) do not affect the truth or falsity of the claim. This is made quite clear by the following example: "Bill claims that 1+1=2. But he is a Republican, so his claim is false."
APPLICATION: Your attacks were arguably the most subtle kind of ad hominem--trumped-up irrelevancies used to imply a general defect in the reasoning and credibility of the speaker. I.e. a poor debater using complex, presumptious verbiage to express "simple" nonsense (and a poor reader as well) lacks sufficient intellectual gravitas to be seriously considered. Sure, you didn't use a bald-faced ad hominem (e.g. he's one of those idiot Christians who believes in a primitive "toddler-god" who "smashes his toys in a fit of anger" (thank you Mr. Rowe)), but a more veiled form of intellectual condescension can function as a stealthy ad hominem nonetheless.
While it is true that you made selective responses to some of my arguments (sadly, you chose to ignore a number of my arguments based on the implication of your biblical criticism), the ad hominem was arguably mixed in to affectively (and I suspect effectively) elevate your own standing via implication ("I'm the smart, erudite, reasonable one; he's the windbag who can't read.")
Certainly I am not guiltless. My speculation about your lust for extra-biblical sex was most certainly irrelevant to the issues being discussed (however, it has been my extensive experience that most of those who strenuously object to biblical morality eventually turn out to nurture some pet practice that contradicts it. Perhaps it's just a correlation. But the suggestions that God ignored the "bad" sins and focused on the "meaningless" ones (as if we are objectively positioned to accurately judge which "sins" are more deleterious to the human condition) does nothing to rebut my imprudent speculations. And certainly I apologize I forgot your distinction about Hebrew-on-Hebrew slavery from the first post in the thread. (arguably the Hebrew-on-Hebrew rule IS a statment condemning slavery, given the expansion of the people of God concept in the New Testament, and it was cited as such in abolitionist arguments)
(Sidebar: In retrospect, I disagree with the editing and translation of your quote from 1 Tim. 6. When read in context, the passage is much broader than what you suggest:
1 Timothy 6
1 All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered. 2Those who have believing masters are not to show less respect for them because they are brothers. Instead, they are to serve them even better, because those who benefit from their service are believers, and dear to them. These are the things you are to teach and urge on them.
3 If anyone teaches false doctrines and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, 4 he is conceited and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions 5and constant friction between men of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain.
6 But godliness with contentment is great gain. 7 For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it. 8 But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with that. 9 People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. 10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs. 11 But you, man of God, flee from all this, and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, endurance and gentleness. 12 Fight the good fight of the faith. Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called when you made your good confession in the presence of many witnesses. 13 In the sight of God, who gives life to everything, and of Christ Jesus, who while testifying before Pontius Pilate made the good confession, I charge you 14 to keep this command without spot or blame until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15 which God will bring about in his own time--God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16 who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen.
17 Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. 18 Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. 19 In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life.
20 Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care. Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge, 21 which some have professed and in so doing have wandered from the faith.
Grace be with you.
Sound exegesis of this chapter would not suggest that it is a command to hold slaves, or even an endorsement of any sort of brutality towards others.)
I, of course, turn the other cheek and forgive "seventy times seven." Not because I expect "reciprocity" (I don't) or think that it is my rational duty as a highly evolved human who transcends biblical morality, but because I am convicted to do so out of allegiance to universal ethical principles taught and lived by Jesus Christ.
Grace be with you.
"An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. [note the elements] Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting).
Thank you for proving my point. I did not make any such argument. I observed, in a single line, that you have a tendency to use excessive verbiage to make simple points. That single line was in the midst of what must now be a few thousand words that amount to substantive responses to every single claim you have made. If I had said, "You write badly, therefore you're wrong", THAT would be an ad hominem. But I didn't say that. But like most people, you think that if someone says something that you deem to be insulting, it must be an ad hominem. That is false. And you just showed why by showing the definition of ad hominem that in no way describes the statement that I made.
Certainly I am not guiltless. My speculation about your lust for extra-biblical sex was most certainly irrelevant to the issues being discussed (however, it has been my extensive experience that most of those who strenuously object to biblical morality eventually turn out to nurture some pet practice that contradicts it. Perhaps it's just a correlation. But the suggestions that God ignored the "bad" sins and focused on the "meaningless" ones (as if we are objectively positioned to accurately judge which "sins" are more deleterious to the human condition) does nothing to rebut my imprudent speculations.
Here's the irony - that truly WAS an ad hominem, as you made the argument that this was the "real" issue, implying that therefore my other arguments could be dismissed because you had discovered the "core" argument by reading between the lines. That truly IS an ad hominem; what I said was not. But thank you very much for providing me with the incredibly amusing phrase "extra-biblical sex". That's a keeper.
I, of course, turn the other cheek and forgive "seventy times seven." Not because I expect "reciprocity" (I don't) or think that it is my rational duty as a highly evolved human who transcends biblical morality, but because I am convicted to do so out of allegiance to universal ethical principles taught and lived by Jesus Christ.
LOL. Truly, you are a martyr. Now if only one of those "universal ethical principles" had included "don't own other people", you might actually have a coherent argument to make.
Your response selectively ignores that my response did not stop with a legalistic quotation of the definition of an ad hominem (and of a circumstantial ad hominem):
"APPLICATION: Your attacks were arguably the most subtle kind of ad hominem--trumped-up irrelevancies used to imply a general defect in the reasoning and credibility of the speaker. I.e. a poor debater using complex, presumptious verbiage to express "simple" nonsense (and a poor reader as well) lacks sufficient intellectual gravitas to be seriously considered. Sure, you didn't use a bald-faced ad hominem (e.g. he's one of those idiot Christians who believes in a primitive "toddler-god" who "smashes his toys in a fit of anger" (thank you Mr. Rowe)), but a more veiled form of intellectual condescension can function as a stealthy ad hominem nonetheless."
While it is true that you made selective responses to some of my arguments (sadly, you chose to ignore a number of my arguments based on the implication of your biblical criticism), the ad hominem was arguably mixed in to affectively (and I suspect effectively) elevate your own standing via implication ("I'm the smart, erudite, reasonable one; he's the windbag who can't read.")
ED: Now if only one of those "universal ethical principles" had included "don't own other people", you might actually have a coherent argument to make.
Response: The obvious metamessage is "don't listen to him, his arguments are not "coherent." But you didn't make an ad hominem attack because you didn't EXPRESSLY state the conclusion you implied, right?
Enjoy the remainder of this beautiful day!
Absolutely incredible. But this is what happens when you don't have any actual arguments left.
For another persoective from St. Paul on slavery, take a look at the letter to Philemon. It's quite short as epistles go, easily read in a sitting, yet it has some radical ideas about slavery which were largely ignored by the Church for centuries. In it, Paul writes to Philemon, a slaveowner, who's slave had run away and served Paul. Paul sends the slave back to Philemon with the letter and tells Philemon to trat the slave as Philemon would treat Paul. This is the kind of radical "treat someone as you would have them threat you" that is the best feature of Christianity.
As a progressive Christian, my view is that Jesus was teaching us *not* to rely on rule-based moral systems, but rather to rely on a principle-based moral system. It is through applying the principles of Jesus' morality that we get to the conclusion that slavery is immoral -- that it is immoral to own slaves, not immoral to be a slave -- so that looking at Paul's exortions to the slave are really beside the point. They are calls to servanthood as is Jesus' entire message.
For another persoective from St. Paul on slavery, take a look at the letter to Philemon. It's quite short as epistles go, easily read in a sitting, yet it has some radical ideas about slavery which were largely ignored by the Church for centuries. In it, Paul writes to Philemon, a slaveowner, who's slave had run away and served Paul. Paul sends the slave back to Philemon with the letter and tells Philemon to trat the slave as Philemon would treat Paul. This is the kind of radical "treat someone as you would have them threat you" that is the best feature of Christianity.
I've read the letter to Philemon, of course. My argument to this is that the truly radical "treat someone as you would have them treat you" response here would have been to tell Philemon that it is wrong to own other people, period. If Philemon was genuinely interested in treating other people as he wanted to be treated, he would of course not wanted to be owned by someone else, even if that someone else was told to treat him nicely. And if Paul was genuinely interested in applying the golden rule to the situation, he would have said as much. While I do acknowledge that Paul's advice to Philemon is an improvement over allowing slave owners to beat their slaves, it's still not a truly moral position and it does not really apply the ethical system of Jesus consistently.
As a progressive Christian, my view is that Jesus was teaching us *not* to rely on rule-based moral systems, but rather to rely on a principle-based moral system. It is through applying the principles of Jesus' morality that we get to the conclusion that slavery is immoral -- that it is immoral to own slaves, not immoral to be a slave -- so that looking at Paul's exortions to the slave are really beside the point. They are calls to servanthood as is Jesus' entire message.
But again, Paul leaves the institution of slavery entirely untouched and still legitimized. How you treat a slave and whether it is moral or immoral to own a slave are two different issues. I think you make a good point about Jesus' views on morality and his attempt to move morality away from a rule-based system to a principle-based system, a point that I agree with entirely. I think that's exactly what Jesus taught, and I think he was right to do so. But it's also true that in his teachings, he applied those principles in a wide variety of circumstances to show his disciples what was right and wrong in specific circumstances. The point of many of his parables was to apply general principles in specific circumstances. But he did not, at least according to the gospels, ever apply it to slavery, nor did Paul attempt to.
The best that can be said, from a biblical standpoint, is that Jesus was silent on the issue and that Paul thought slavery was a legitimate institution but that masters were not to mistreat slaves that were fellow believers. This is still a far cry from our modern moral viewpoint on slavery, which is significantly better by any measure.
The institution of slavery, at that point in time was essentially untouchable. The institution brought financial security to the slave. Paul was asking Philemon to treat his runaway slave as he would treat Paul. How would this man have treated Paul? He would have given him a guest room and fed him. He would have treated Paul as an equal.
Meanwhile, he likely would have treated a runaway slave quite poorly. A beating and loss of priviledges was a likely result. It's still a pretty radical idea. Slavery later took on different forms. The mideval serf was as much a slave to the land and to the lord as a Roman slave. Slaves, at least, could and did hold positions in the early church.
I think the real underlying question here is to what extent can we hold people in the past to contemporary standards of morality?
The institution of slavery, at that point in time was essentially untouchable.
But the issue at hand is his advice to Philemon on what was moral and right. Paul could not bring down the institution of slavery, but he certainly could have said what you have said, that the application of Jesus' principles would require that we believe enslaving another human being is wrong and he shouldn't do it. Not everyone held slaves at the time, of course, so telling one man, and his fellow Christians, not to hold slaves has little to do with whether the entire institution of slavery would have been eliminated.
I think the real underlying question here is to what extent can we hold people in the past to contemporary standards of morality?
As people - flawed human beings struggling to transcend the dominant ideals of their time - we can certainly understand a slow improvement, sometimes even one step forward, two steps back. But if you're claiming that your moral code comes directly from God himself, as the biblical authors claimed, and you still endorse slavery, then I think you have a very big problem. Especially when that God allegedly gave them clear and unyielding moral rules, most of which were punishable by death if broken, governing activities far less barbaric than slavery.
I have no problem viewing biblical morality from a purely historical perspective and saying that in many ways their moral code was an improvement, while remaining deeply flawed in many other ways. That is to be expected and nothing need be explained away. But I could not view a moral code as barbaric as is found in the OT of the bible as coming from God. As Jon Rowe put it, I think higher of God than that.
Morality doesn't evolve. It's always been okay to be gay, and it's never been okay enslave anyone. Moral theory and practice evolve, though. Slavery was the norm throughout human history. Then for whatever reason, people actually started thinking and debating about whether it was okay. The pro-slavery side lost the moral arguments because it was wrong about morality. In less than 200 years, the antislavery movement destroyed an institution as old as humanity itself. That's pretty amazing. The simplest explanation is quite simply that emancipationists were right and slave holders were wrong.
Morality doesn't evolve. It's always been okay to be gay, and it's never been okay enslave anyone. Moral theory and practice evolve, though. Slavery was the norm throughout human history. Then for whatever reason, people actually started thinking and debating about whether it was okay. The pro-slavery side lost the moral arguments because it was wrong about morality. In less than 200 years, the antislavery movement destroyed an institution as old as humanity itself. That's pretty amazing. The simplest explanation is quite simply that emancipationists were right and slave holders were wrong.
Interesting point, and hard to disagree with. It is of course true that when I say that morality has evolved, I mean that our moral views have evolved, not that morality itself has evolved. And now that you mention it, it really is remarkable that it happened so quickly given the long and ubiquitous nature of the institution of slavery.
I feel sorry for you because you actually believe the stuff you write, which means you have no real faith in anything--unless you approve of it. Having faith is believing in something you can't necessarily see or don't necessarily understand. God's plan has nothing to do with you or what you think is right, it has to do with faith and believing he has a reason for why he tells us to do certain things. If there were never any tests of our faith, then how would we ever know what is right and what is wrong? In my heart, slavery, war, and so many other things seem entirely wrong, but I am not so arrogant to think I have the right to decide what is right. Maybe you feel like you should be able to drive 70 mph on an empty highway at night, but if the speed limit is 50 mph, you're going to get a ticket if you get caught for breaking the law. Laws (whether they are God's or governments) are written for a reason, we don't have to agree with them, but we should abide by them.
Oh gosh, an anonymous halfwit spouting nonsense feels sorry for me. Whatever shall I do?