Slavery. Religious or secular phenomena.

[Anchorman]

I'm not sure what you mean by more theological than historical?

One cannot regard the Pentateuch as accurate history.
The events of Exodus have been exaggerated and distorted by those who 'edited' it in the Exile period; its' historicity cannot be verified.
However it was written to confirm God's care for His people in straitened times - in that it is theologically valuable.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In which Vlad:

1. Wrongly describes "decreasingly practising Christian" with "increasingly secular" as if in some way the Christians who stopped going to church then called their MPs to lobby for the non-enforcement of the criminal law;

2. Still fails to grasp that, even if we were "increasingly secular", that no more correlates to increased slavery than "decreasingly Christian" correlates to the reduction in murders.

In which Vlad invents a new concept of "secular morality" even though there is no such thing. Secularists can draw their morality from any number of sources, but the fact of their secularism isn't one of them.

Again it is Be Rational who introduces the idea of Secular morality (in order to demonstrate that we are more moral than God.

Reduction of murders .....since 2001.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In which Vlad spectacularly shoots himself in the foot by failing to notice that even by his own measurement of "incidence of slavery" our secular society is much better than "the one Jesus lived in" - not least because that society condoned it whereas ours criminalises it.

It was criminalised in 1833 was society then secular? I don't know?
Slavery is increasing society obviously got less vigilant and active against it? Is that condoning it? It is certainly a moral decline if you look at No slavery being a key stone of secular morality....which Be Rational does.

[Hope]

In which Vlad spectacularly shoots himself in the foot by failing to notice that even by his own measurement of "incidence of slavery" our secular society is much better than "the one Jesus lived in" - not least because that society condoned it whereas ours criminalises it.

Is it, blue.  What was the incidence of slavery back then, compared to today (hint: I've seen figures suggesting a tenfold increase between then and now, albeit today's figures are lower than in the 1800s when Wilberforce and Shaftesbury fought to abolish the practice).  I wonder what the incidence of child abuse was back then; or of the elderly being confined to homes for their particular age - away from family all too often.

Just because we may have improved some aspects of our lives, does it mean that we are overall a 'better society'?  Does the fact that the larger society that Jesus lived in condoned slavery mean that Jewish society itself did?  Finally, which is worse, criminalising something but allowing it to go on unchecked apart from in high visibility cases, or acknowledging its existence and (to an extent)  necessary for the continuance of the society of the time and seeking to mitigate the impacts it had on people caught up in it by encouraging owners to treat theirs honestly and kindly.

[Gordon]

Is it, blue.  What was the incidence of slavery back then, compared to today (hint: I've seen figures suggesting a tenfold increase between then and now, albeit today's figures are lower than in the 1800s when Wilberforce and Shaftesbury fought to abolish the practice).

What figures? I suggest you cite them, and I do hope they account for a both variations in population and methods of record keeping.

I wonder what the incidence of child abuse was back then; or of the elderly being confined to homes for their particular age - away from family all too often.

Is your wonder supported by information?

Just because we may have improved some aspects of our lives, does it mean that we are overall a 'better society'?

It is a subjective view but I'd say so: for example in the part of the world I live in I'm glad that infant mortality has improved dramatically.

Does the fact that the larger society that Jesus lived in condoned slavery mean that Jewish society itself did?

No, but so what?

Finally, which is worse, criminalising something but allowing it to go on unchecked apart from in high visibility cases, or acknowledging its existence and (to an extent)  necessary for the continuance of the society of the time and seeking to mitigate the impacts it had on people caught up in it by encouraging owners to treat theirs honestly and kindly.

Sounds like another of your bizarre tu quoque like suggestions.

[trippymonkey]

Talking of Slavery in modern times......
This is from MY area of Lancashire ......

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/14830039.Four_men_held_after_modern_slavery_raids_across_East_Lancashire/

See what you all think !

Nick in Nelson.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What figures? I suggest you cite them, and I do hope they account for a both variations in population and methods of record keeping.

Is your wonder supported by information?

It is a subjective view but I'd say so: for example in the part of the world I live in I'm glad that infant mortality has improved dramatically.

No, but so what?

Sounds like another of your bizarre tu quoque like suggestions.

Things we have now that we never had in the fifties and sixties.
Precarious employment.
Gig economy
Benefits going down
The Thatcherite underclass
No Go estates
Modern slavery
Impending economic doom.
possible end to the UK.
cybercrime.
The one party state.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

Is it, blue.  What was the incidence of slavery back then, compared to today (hint: I've seen figures suggesting a tenfold increase between then and now, albeit today's figures are lower than in the 1800s when Wilberforce and Shaftesbury fought to abolish the practice).

“Back then” is the time of Jesus that Vlad referred to, and the incidence of slavery then was hugely greater then than it is now – endemic in fact, and condoned both by the Roman state and by the OT.

I wonder what the incidence of child abuse was back then; or of the elderly being confined to homes for their particular age - away from family all too often.

Wonder away, and while you’re at it wonder too at the incidence of capital punishment for petty crimes, of raping the women and girls of your defeated enemies, of pederasty, of…

Just because we may have improved some aspects of our lives, does it mean that we are overall a 'better society'?

If you think that our moral norms are better than those of the Jesus-era Roman empire, then yes.

Does the fact that the larger society that Jesus lived in condoned slavery mean that Jewish society itself did?

If “Jewish society” thought the Torah or the OT to be authoritative, then yes.

Finally, which is worse, criminalising something but allowing it to go on unchecked apart from in high visibility cases, or acknowledging its existence and (to an extent)  necessary for the continuance of the society of the time and seeking to mitigate the impacts it had on people caught up in it by encouraging owners to treat theirs honestly and kindly.

Wow. You seriously think that Jesus-era slaves were treated “honestly and kindly”?

Seriously?

You (presumably) think slavery to be immoral regardless of how economically desirable it might have been, yet if the NT is to be believed Jesus said not a word against it. So much for core values eh?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hope,

“Back then” is the time of Jesus that Vlad referred to, and the incidence of slavery then was hugely greater then than it is now – endemic in fact, and condoned both by the Roman state and by the OT.

Wonder away, and while you’re at it wonder too at the incidence of capital punishment for petty crimes, of raping the women and girls of your defeated enemies, of pederasty, of…

If you think that our moral norms are better than those of the Jesus-era Roman empire, then yes.

If “Jewish society” thought the Torah or the OT to be authoritative, then yes.

Wow. You seriously think that Jesus-era slaves were treated “honestly and kindly”?

Seriously?

You (presumably) think slavery to be immoral regardless of how economically desirable it might have been, yet if the NT is to be believed Jesus said not a word against it. So much for core values eh?

I think we should look at the two areas of the title here Religious and secular. Given that the secular has always existed and Christianity as portrayed in the Gospel is the basis of our moral culture then I'm afraid all ill can be put down to secular behaviour at the point where it repudiates the gospel.

Perfect, non religious morality as espoused by secular humanism has i'm afraid led to a less than critical moral review. The pressure of true goodness is evident in Secular Humanist self righteousness and in a certain desire to eradicate religion from the public realm so their is no comparator.

We are all in danger of going ''The full secular'' but we can also recognise the cultural importance of Christianity as Richard Dawkins does.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hope,

“Back then” is the time of Jesus that Vlad referred to, and the incidence of slavery then was hugely greater then than it is now – endemic in fact, and condoned both by the Roman state and by the OT.

Wow. You seriously think that Jesus-era slaves were treated “honestly and kindly”?
Seriously?

Yes I think the Early Christian debates on slavery as reflected in the epistles would have improved the lot of many slaves and the release of some.

Slaves had legal rights and in some cases had better economic conditions than some free people. Some people became slaves for economic and career reasons and could be adopted or married by owners all in non Christian circumstances.

The treatment of commercial slaves post enlightenment was a bit different and there treatment was industrialised and brutal with no prospect other than hard labour, little prospect of manumission and regarded no further than as breeding stock. Altogether  a more ghastly affair as is Modern slavery.

It is not that they had slavery then. It is because we had thought we had done away with it but obviously haven't.

Some people in the secular context have rationalised that it's OK to do this and the secular context has allowed it to happen.

[jeremyp]

I'm suggesting that Christians debated the rights and wrong of slave ownership, trading, and treatment at a time when other romans probably would not have.

And the result of their debate? Carry on.

[jeremyp]

But if you are ascribing humanitarian principles to secularism

Where did I do that?

how come slavery is now increasing in an increasingly secular country?

Which secular country are you talking about and what evidence do you have that slavery is increasing there?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And the result of their debate? Carry on.

One result is the epistolatory advice on slavery which has already been discussed.
This would have improved the lot of slaves with Christian masters up to and including manumission.

That the condition and treatment of slaves gets worse in post enlightenment industrial level slavery is a departure from the NT for secular reasons and nominal Christianity. The counter to this then occurs through the rise of Quakerism and evangelicalism. This was continued in the UK during increased secularisation but in the increased secularisation which marks the last three decades slavery has made a comeback due to acquisitive materialism and a complacent secular humanism which had it's moral compass disoriented by it's own beliefs about intrinsic goodness and the idea of natural moral progression.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Yes I think the Early Christian debates on slavery as reflected in the epistles would have improved the lot of many slaves and the release of some.

Slaves had legal rights and in some cases had better economic conditions than some free people. Some people became slaves for economic and career reasons and could be adopted or married by owners all in non Christian circumstances.

The treatment of commercial slaves post enlightenment was a bit different and there treatment was industrialised and brutal with no prospect other than hard labour, little prospect of manumission and regarded no further than as breeding stock. Altogether  a more ghastly affair as is Modern slavery.

It is not that they had slavery then. It is because we had thought we had done away with it but obviously haven't.

Some people in the secular context have rationalised that it's OK to do this and the secular context has allowed it to happen.

In which a man who believes in moral absolutes and that his pick of the available faiths tells him what those absolutes are indulges in such fantastic casuistry that he also claims that slavery was fine provided the slave owners tried to be a bit nice about it.

Either Christianity has inviolable core values or it doesn't. Adjusting them retrospectively to suit the times is moral relativism.

Coming next: paedophilia is fine provided you give the kid a sweet afterwards.
 
Contemptible stuff, just contemptible.

[Enki]

And what do you base your assumption regarding Jesus' attitude to slavery on, enki?  Apart from his apparent total silence on the matter - a state of affairs that applies to a number of other issues as well - what makes you feel that his moral stance is any less than yours?

Well, as you seem to agree, Hope, Jesus didn't really speak out against slavery, that is according to the gospels. It seems he was ready to take on authority in other ways though, and is often looked upon as being quite revolutionary in his moral stances. He even accepted that one might be persecuted for one's views. He had quite a lot to say about kosher food and what the sabbath should mean, but is silent on the evils of slavery. I consider that to be a strange omission from his avowed intentions to support the poor and downtrodden.

When he does allude to slavery, he seems to be particularly uncommital or even quite accepting of the practice, often using it to make a point. E.G. Luke 12:47-48, or Matthew 18:23-35 or Matthew 25:14-30 or Matthew 24:45-51.

And yet he is credited as saying that you should love your neighbour as yourself, which, on the face of it, seems to run contrary to this acceptance of slavery.

Hence there seems to be ambiguity in his message at the very least, and, as I can only go upon what he is supposed to have said, from my point of view I have two alternatives.

a) The Bible is the inspired word of God, and therefore slavery was not considered by God at that time to be of sufficient importance to denounce, clearly and unambiguously. I personally consider it to be a totally immoral activity, and therefore I would suggest that in this area  my attitude runs contrary to that of the gospels. 

b) Jesus was human and had some powerful things to say, many which have echoed through the centuries. However against the backcloth that slavery was an accepted practice in those times, he saw it as a normal activity. Of course, he isn't alone in this(e.g. Aristotle) and I certainly wouldn't simply condemn a human being for holding such views considering the time in which they lived. Rather would I try to pick out what I would consider to be the more enlightened messages that such people give, accepting that they are only human.

Obviously I greatly favour the second alternative.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In which a man who believes in moral absolutes and that his pick of the available faiths tells him what those absolutes are indulges in such fantastic casuistry that he also claims that slavery was fine provided the slave owners tried to be a bit nice about it.

Either Christianity has inviolable core values or it doesn't. Adjusting them retrospectively to suit the times is moral relativism.

Coming next: paedophilia is fine provided you give the kid a sweet afterwards.
 
Contemptible stuff, just contemptible.

Hillside. I can completely understand that you are pissed at the whole secular humanist/antitheist/atheist model of ''every day secular society just gets better and better'' unravelling before your eyes. But pissed enough to throw out accusations of supporting paedophilia? That is certainly the mark of a desperate man.

If one is a moral realist one can't fail to realise that as St Paul has said ''all are fallen short''. This is a fallen world.

Do I believe that Paul and Early Christianity was faced with a choice of a failing social revolution along the lines of Spartacus rebellion or an authentic Christian demonstration of the real power of God, Yes.

Do I feel the Early Christians including many, many slaves did the right thing by mainly staying put within there society and hence converting many, yes I do.

I guess Hillside sees himself as a time travelling moral crusader in which had he been there at the time he would have put a few people straight and no messing.....but that is wishful self righteous thinking and after all why would he rather see him as a first century atheist moral leader rather than in another role say a persecutor of Christians.......and we all know what they were like.

Whatever...Hillside you've lost your class in a pretty disgraceful way IMHO and it's going to take me a lot of persuading to hang about on a forum where that is the case.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hillside. I can completely understand that you are pissed at the whole secular humanist/antitheist/atheist model of ''every day secular society just gets better and better'' unravelling before your eyes. But pissed enough to throw out accusations of supporting paedophilia? That is certainly the mark of a desperate man.

If one is a moral realist one can't fail to realise that as St Paul has said ''all are fallen short''. This is a fallen world.

Do I believe that Paul and Early Christianity was faced with a choice of a failing social revolution along the lines of Spartacus rebellion or an authentic Christian demonstration of the real power of God, Yes.

Do I feel the Early Christians including many, many slaves did the right thing by mainly staying put within there society and hence converting many, yes I do.

I guess Hillside sees himself as a time travelling moral crusader in which had he been there at the time he would have put a few people straight and no messing.....but that is wishful self righteous thinking and after all why would he rather see him as a first century atheist moral leader rather than in another role say a persecutor of Christians.......and we all know what they were like.

Whatever...Hillside you've lost your class in a pretty disgraceful way IMHO and it's going to take me a lot of persuading to hang about on a forum where that is the case.

In which Vlad not only fails to grasp that he wasn't accused of supporting paedophilia at all, but that instead he was "accused" of moral relativism. Moral relativism is of course fine by me as it reflects the way morality observably works, but it's a difficult spot for those who in the same breath claim moral absolutism ("slavery bad") and moral relativism ("slavery bad, except when the slave owners are a bit nice about it").

If the Vlads of this world think there to be moral certainties that are divinely ordained then changing their moral position according to the circumstances of the time is a no-no: for the absolutist, bad is bad and good is good.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In which Vlad not only fails to grasp that he wasn't accused of supporting paedophilia at all, but that instead he was "accused" of moral relativism. Moral relativism is of course fine by me as it reflects the way morality observably works, but it's a difficult spot for those who in the same breath claim moral absolutism ("slavery bad") and moral relativism ("slavery bad, except when the slave owners are a bit nice about it").

If the Vlads of this world think there to be moral certainties that are divinely ordained then changing their moral position according to the circumstances of the time is a no-no: for the absolutist, bad is bad and good is good.

No, I don't think Slavery is fine which is one of the things you accused me of.
I am not a moral relativist.
You on the other hand have resorted to hyperbole.....You've lost it Hillside and for the reasons I've already said.

Christianity emerges in a society where there is slavery. Your beloved secular society in which ''everything just gets better'' seems to have reinstigated it and that is something in a completely different order.

Christian thesis is this is a fallen world of greater and lesser evils that is the case.
Of course, following your logic the whole thing should be abolished. God permits many things but doesn't condone or approve of them.

[Gordon]

Christianity emerges in a society where there is slavery. Your beloved secular society in which ''everything just gets better'' seems to have reinstigated it and that is something in a completely different order.

As far as I can see, Vlad, you still haven't established a causal link between increased secularism and increased slavery along with clarification of how both these states are defined and measured. Your personal conviction that they are associated isn't sufficient on that basis and since association isn't causation.

Christian thesis is this is a fallen world of greater and lesser evils that is the case.
Of course, following your logic the whole thing should be abolished. God permits many things but doesn't condone or approve of them.

A straw man, Vlad: pure and simple since you must know nobody here is campaigning for the abolition of Christianity.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

God permits many things but doesn't condone or approve of them.

Indeed.

One may as well say, "God condones sin because He allows people to sin". So why did He send His Son to die on the cross for our sins then? (Romans 5 v

Edit: Romans 5 v 8

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As far as I can see, Vlad, you still haven't established a causal link between increased secularism and increased slavery along with clarification of how both these states are defined and measured. Your personal conviction that they are associated isn't sufficient on that basis and since association isn't causation.

A straw man, Vlad: pure and simple since you must know nobody here is campaigning for the abolition of Christianity.

My thesis is that people today become modern slavers for the secular reason of acquisitive materialism.

Secondly What do you mean abolish Christianity.....I wasn't talking about that. If Hillside believes that God should supernaturally abolish evil and the source of evil then logically he would have to abolish people.

[bluehillside Retd.]

No, I don't think Slavery is fine which is one of the things you accused me of.

In which Vlad tells us in consecutive posts that slavery is morally fine provided you're nice to your slaves, and then that it's morally not fine at all.

One wonders when this moral absolutist will make up his mind about which position is morally absolutely good and which absolutely morally bad.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In which Vlad tells us in consecutive posts that slavery is morally fine provided you're nice to your slaves, and then that it's morally not fine at all.

One wonders when this moral absolutist will make up his mind about which position is morally absolutely good and which absolutely morally bad.

Please quote with context when I have said that or used the words ''slavery was morally fine.'' You are putting words into my mouth Hillside just stop it will you?

[Gordon]

My thesis is that people today become modern slavers for the secular reason of acquisitive materialism.

So it is since you've said so: having said so where is the data supporting your position? Without that this is just your opinion

Secondly What do you mean abolish Christianity.....I wasn't talking about that. If Hillside believes that God should supernaturally abolish evil and the source of evil then logically he would have to abolish people.

Try reading the last bit of your 117, where you seem to move effortlessly between 'Christian thesis in the first sentence of the last para to 'abolished'in the next sentence:

Christian thesis is this is a fallen world of greater and lesser evils that is the case.
Of course, following your logic the whole thing should be abolished. God permits many things but doesn't condone or approve of them.

[SusanDoris]

There's a programme on Radio 4 at the moment, but I'm not listening to it.