Using the Bible as an excuse for bigotry

[Spud]

Are you going to tell me what that means or wait until I've made some assumptions based on the plain meaning of the words, then tell me I'm wrong?

Sure, sorry - I wasn't expecting you to think I was referring to eternity, and I should have quoted the verse that was in my mind at the time. It was Leviticus 25:42: "Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. 43 Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God."

I was also thinking of Leviticus 18. If people do the things described there, it says in verse 28 that they are destined to be vomited out of their land. That results in them becoming slaves to other nations. This country is more or less in line with the laws given in this chapter, but is in breach of some of them. This would be why we have a huge national debt, thus are effectively owned by overseas banks.

[jeremyp]

I don't think that Jeremy believes that god exists, so therefore discussion about whether a non existent thing is good is moot.

You are absolutely correct, but, if (hypothetically) God exists and is as Spud describes, getting rewarded by God depends not on whether you are good but on how much you suck up to him, you have to admit these are more the characteristics of a megalomanic dictator than an enlightened leader.

[SteveH]

This sounds like Euthyphro dilemma territory.

[ippy]

Because it classifies a group of people as immoral because of their underlying nature despite the fact that there is no reason to think that nature, or its expression, does anything to harm anyone.  It's akin to saying that being black is wrong, or being a ginger is wrong, or being short is wrong, or being a woman is wrong...

As a single thing that you know about them it's probably not enough, but I'd suggest that it's not a good sign.

I'd agree that how it's expressed is a more important signal than what's believed - there are any number of absolute tools out there who are perfectly accepting of gay people but they're still not people you'd want to associate with.

I appreciate that it's a little more nuanced, and that people are doing the best they can, and I don't think that it's helpful in these instances to accuse people of hypocrisy, but to be the recipient of this is to hear 'What you are is fundamentally broken, but I'm prepared to put in the effort to reach out to you' - at best it's horrendously patronising, and at worst it's an accusation under thinly veiled pretense of acceptance.

See, now that's one of the issues - you've just equated being gay with theft and rape, and those are not even remotely alike.  There are moral reasons to punish theft and rape, after which realisation you decide if prison is the most effective form of punishment.  There is no moral case to be made for punishing homosexuality, either in nature or in practice.

On which basis why is homosexuality considered to be wrong by much of the Abrahamic faith?


What? Suspiciously close to Joseph's, I'd guess....

Why try to offend gay people, and their friends  and family, by implying that gayness was in some way morally wrong, or comparable to theft and rape?

I can't speak for everyone, but personally I seek to understand, inform and in the most extreme instances ameliorate - sometimes that results in agitation and offence, but no-one has an intrinsic right not to be offended.  If you're going to offend people - and although offence is taken not given, you can go into it knowing that it's going to be taken (actively hunted down, in some cases!) - then you need to feel that what you're doing has an underlying value that justifies it.

Really?  People coming on and trying to help you understand that it's the 21st Century, not the 1st Century - they aren't being paid to do this, they aren't obliged to do this, they're trying to help you and to improve our society in general.

Look up the KKK, the Jim Crow laws, the Catholic instutionalising of misogyny, the Eastern European far-right political movements 'encouragement' of women back into a subservient role of mother and homemaker, the anti-homosexuality legislation in Uganda, the rhetoric around the miscegenation regulations across the world and come back and say that the Bible has never been used to excuse bigotry.

You can talk about sin, but that doesn't make sin real.

No, we don't.  We can look back at history with modern sensibilities and say, that was then, but we're better than that now - it's time we started acting like it.

O.

Just a thought Outlander, how many of these bigots would turn down a gay, for example, ambulance driver about to apply their skills to save the life of one of their nearest and dearest that had been unlucky enough to be involved in a life threatening accident, or refuse treatment from a gay doctor or nurse in A & E.

Or even worse, being treated by someone that's unmarried and living as a couple that have had children out of wedlock as well.

Hope you're OK with that lot Outlander, only I wasn't trying to shock you.

ippy.

[Christine]

Sure, sorry - I wasn't expecting you to think I was referring to eternity, and I should have quoted the verse that was in my mind at the time. It was Exodus 25:42: "Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. 43 Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God."

I was also thinking of Leviticus 18. If people do the things described there, it says in verse 28 that they are destined to be vomited out of their land. That results in them becoming slaves to other nations. This country is more or less in line with the laws given in this chapter, but is in breach of some of them. This would be why we have a huge national debt, thus are effectively owned by overseas banks.

Am I right in thinking that the implication of the first verse you quote is that it's OK to sell humans who aren't Israelites as slaves?  And that those people can be ruled over ruthlessly with your god's approval?

And Leviticus 18 seems to only apply to men, but anyway, who has been vomited off their land in the UK?  You're changing the meaning of words to suit yourself again, aren't you?

Thanks for your ...um... clarification.  You might be surprised to hear that I'm no nearer being convinced of the inherent morality of Christianity (your version or anybody else's), or perhaps not.  I no longer think Christian apologists really want to "save souls".  The main goal seems to be to make threats to people who are understandably unconvinced while being smug and inappropriately patronising.

[Spud]

Am I right in thinking that the implication of the first verse you quote is that it's OK to sell humans who aren't Israelites as slaves? And that those people can be ruled over ruthlessly with your god's approval?

From the context I think it could be the difference between a family member and a non-family member working for you. There is no licence for slavery implied in these verses; plus there is no word for slave in Hebrew, and every person, servants and foreigners included, was supposed to have a day off 'to be refreshed' which is the opposite of slavery.

And Leviticus 18 seems to only apply to men, but anyway, who has been vomited off their land in the UK?

As I said, the UK is not in breach of the laws of Leviticus 18 in the way that the Canaanites were. However, abortion, homosexuality and adultery are permitted. I don't know who is in what situation, but there is such a thing as repossession of homes, homelessness etc (not saying that every case of those is because of the above).

You're changing the meaning of words to suit yourself again, aren't you?

Thanks for your ...um... clarification.  You might be surprised to hear that I'm no nearer being convinced of the inherent morality of Christianity (your version or anybody else's), or perhaps not.  I no longer think Christian apologists really want to "save souls".  The main goal seems to be to make threats to people who are understandably unconvinced while being smug and inappropriately patronising.

For me it's about answering the questions everybody asks, including me. You seem to come from one of those forums where where people are brutally nasty; I hope the respect people have for each other here will rub off on you at some point.

[Outrider]

From the context I think it could be the difference between a family member and a non-family member working for you. There is no licence for slavery implied in these verses; plus there is no word for slave in Hebrew, and every person, servants and foreigners included, was supposed to have a day off 'to be refreshed' which is the opposite of slavery.

No, it isn't. Slavery isn't solely about the treatment you receive from your work-controller, it's about whether you are an equal citizen in the eyes of the culture in which you are living or whether you are owned property.  If you are a well-treated slave you are still a slave deprived of your freedom.  You can be a free-born employee and be appallingly treated by an employer, that doesn't make it slavery.

O.

[Spud]

No, it isn't. Slavery isn't solely about the treatment you receive from your work-controller, it's about whether you are an equal citizen in the eyes of the culture in which you are living or whether you are owned property.  If you are a well-treated slave you are still a slave deprived of your freedom.  You can be a free-born employee and be appallingly treated by an employer, that doesn't make it slavery.

O.

Equality between masters and servants in Israel is evident from the sabbath commandment.

[jeremyp]

Equality between masters and servants in Israel is evident from the sabbath commandment.

A master was allowed to beat his slaves unless they died within a week? That kind of equality?

You should give it up, Spud. Accept that the Bible was written in a different time and morality has evolved since then.

[SteveH]

What one can say - and the best that one can say - about the bible's attitude to slavery is that it set strict limits on it, which is a sort of tacit admission that it is not an ideal institution, and points forward to its eventual abolition. However, I agree with Jeremy that morality evolves - we get better over time. The general spirit of the bible, especially the NT, is what we should be guided by, not the specifics.

[jeremyp]

What one can say - and the best that one can say - about the bible's attitude to slavery is that it set strict limits on it, which is a sort of tacit admission that it is not an ideal institution, and points forward to its eventual abolition. However, I agree with Jeremy that morality evolves - we get better over time. The general spirit of the bible, especially the NT, is what we should be guided by, not the specifics.

Because if morality doesn't evolve over time, the Bible would unequivocally say "slavery is wrong" and God would ban his people from keeping them.

[SteveH]

Because if morality doesn't evolve over time, the Bible would unequivocally say "slavery is wrong" and God would ban his people from keeping them.

Quite - although "evolve" is perhaps not the right word, since morality is undoubtedly getting better, whereas biological evolution is just change and adaptation, with no improvement implied.

[Christine]

You seem to come from one of those forums where where people are brutally nasty; I hope the respect people have for each other here will rub off on you at some point.

I'm not from any other forum Spud.  I've been lurking here since BBC days and decided to join because I thought it was increasingly rude to know so much about people without introducing myself. 

You're suddenly very sensitive for someone trying to depict owning and beating slaves as moral behaviour.  I would say "brutally nasty" would better describe some of the passages in your favourite book of myths than my mild sarcasm.

As Thomas Paine (presumably being tortured in hell right now) said:

"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind..."

By Bible he means old testament.

[Christine]

What one can say - and the best that one can say - about the bible's attitude to slavery is that it set strict limits on it, which is a sort of tacit admission that it is not an ideal institution, and points forward to its eventual abolition. However, I agree with Jeremy that morality evolves - we get better over time. The general spirit of the bible, especially the NT, is what we should be guided by, not the specifics.

The general spirit of the NT?  Like punishing the innocent for other people's wrongdoing?

It's great there are Christians who cherry pick the nice bits out of the books and claim that's what it's all about.  Unfortunately, as I think has been pointed out innumerable times by others here, by doing that you kind of lose the right to criticise those who cherry pick the brutally nasty bits, like the Westboro Baptists and the Inquisition.

Morality definitely does change over time and I've been lucky enough to had had reason and secular thinking in the ascendency where I've lived. Theocracies, and other ways of organising ourselves based on unquestioning adherence to an ideology, seem to do much less well at developing fair, happy and secure societies, historically and today. 

[Outrider]

Equality between masters and servants in Israel is evident from the sabbath commandment.

In all circumstances, or when the slave was of the chosen tribes? Regardless, even if it's temporary, even if there is a legal institution requiring some moderation of treatment, the simple fact of ownership of people is abhorrent.

O.

[jeremyp]

Quite - although "evolve" is perhaps not the right word, since morality is undoubtedly getting better, whereas biological evolution is just change and adaptation, with no improvement implied.

I deliberately used the word "evolve" because there are people who would disagree with the assertion that morality is getting better. I think it is, and you clearly think it is, but others think not.

[Spud]

A few thoughts, for what they're worth. The practice of selling oneself as a servant is described in Leviticus 25. What if a foreigner became poor and decided to sell himself, and an Israelite decided he needed a servant and bought him?
Here then is a practice that benefits both the purchaser and the servant.

If it was an Israelite servant, he'd be freed after 6 years. Or, if he liked his master, he could choose to remain the man's servant for life. Again, this was for the benefit of both.

For some reason a foreign servant was to be bought for life (v 44-46).

[Spud]

I'm not from any other forum Spud.  I've been lurking here since BBC days and decided to join because I thought it was increasingly rude to know so much about people without introducing myself.

Wow, were you a BBC forum member then? Good to have you here, look forward to discussing all this with you. 

You're suddenly very sensitive for someone trying to depict owning and beating slaves as moral behaviour.  I would say "brutally nasty" would better describe some of the passages in your favourite book of myths than my mild sarcasm.

Favorite book of true stories, get it right!

You were right that the paragraph in Leviticus 25:44-46 looks as though it is promoting slavery. At first glance it could be interpreted as prohibiting harsh treatment of Hebrew servants but allowing it for foreign ones. But see my previous post.

As Thomas Paine (presumably being tortured in hell right now) said:

"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind..."

By Bible he means old testament.

This will keep for another post.

[Spud]

In all circumstances, or when the slave was of the chosen tribes? Regardless, even if it's temporary, even if there is a legal institution requiring some moderation of treatment, the simple fact of ownership of people is abhorrent.

O.

It applies to servants and foreigners, and even animals.

[Spud]

A master was allowed to beat his slaves unless they died within a week? That kind of equality?

You should give it up, Spud. Accept that the Bible was written in a different time and morality has evolved since then.

Doesn't it say "if the servant gets up after a day or two"? I think you misquoted.

It prohibits injuring him.

A friend once advised me that when reading the Bible, it's important to work out what it's not saying, as well as what it is saying.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

Sorry if your replied an I missed it but I asked you a while back whether, if your think an inerrant and good god wrote down the proper rules for our behaviour then you'd have no problem with those same rules being the norm now. Thus for example would you say that the buying as selling of people would be fine and dandy now for example?

[Christine]

A few thoughts, for what they're worth. The practice of selling oneself as a servant is described in Leviticus 25. What if a foreigner became poor and decided to sell himself, and an Israelite decided he needed a servant and bought him?
Here then is a practice that benefits both the purchaser and the servant.

If it was an Israelite servant, he'd be freed after 6 years. Or, if he liked his master, he could choose to remain the man's servant for life. Again, this was for the benefit of both.

For some reason a foreign servant was to be bought for life (v 44-46). Interestingly, Calvin says, "...it appears that a restraint was imposed upon them lest they should imperiously rule the children of Abraham...".

The context is quite hard to understand: https://biblehub.com/commentaries/calvin/leviticus/25.htm
But it makes some sense of the statute in verses 44-46. If I've understood Calvin correctly here, the 'rigor' referred to was permitted in order that foreign servants couldn't "imperiously rule' Israelites.

Why did your God make it hard to understand?

Don’t you find it a waste of time searching a rambling and contradictory collection of stories for ways to excuse your God’s reported bad behaviour?  I’m going to go out on a limb here and say slavery is immoral.  It was wrong then, whether the slaves were treated badly or not, and whether the slave-owners thought so or not, and it’s still wrong now.  Instead of trying to justify the unjustifiable by picking out the bits you think show your God in a less bad light, why not think about right and wrong for yourself?  Read some stuff that’s critical of your beliefs and your book and see if you can answer the arguments made against your faith position.  Obviously I’d suggest The Age Of Reason by Paine, because I’m a big fan of Thomas Paine, but also you might try On Religion by John Stuart Mill.  I think it’s probably a good thing to consider views different from your own and see whether they stand up to scrutiny.  It’s what I do every time I read a post by you or Alan Burns.

[Christine]

Wow, were you a BBC forum member then? Good to have you here, look forward to discussing all this with you. 

Favorite book of true stories, get it right!

I only posted once on the BBC board and got a nice reply from Wigginhall.  I always felt others were expressing what I would like to anyway, but were more knowledgeable than I am.  I acted on feeling guilty about lurking when a thread appeared regretting the lack of activity here, suggesting the forum was dying.  I didn’t want that, so I joined.

So, you think this is a true story and that your God is good, both at the same time?  2 Kings 2:23-24

“… as he was going up by the way, young lads came out from the city and mocked him and said to him “Go up, you baldhead; go up you baldhead!” When he looked behind him and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the Lord.  Then two female bears came out of the woods and tore up 42 lads of their number.”

I’d also refer you to Numbers 31, the revolting tale of God telling Moses to take vengeance on the Midianites.  After his army has slaughtered all the men, Moses gets angry because they’ve spared the women and children.  Moses says “kill every male among the little ones and kill every woman who has known man intimately.  But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves.”

If I hadn’t been told before I read any Bible at all that God was good and Satan was bad, I certainly wouldn’t have come to that conclusion from reading the stories.

[Outrider]

It applies to servants and foreigners, and even animals.

And has a different threshold to what we might consider justifiable in the modern age, but many things do - that doesn't undermine that fundamental issue with the nature of the institution of slavery and its inherenty dehumanising premise that some people can be owned by other people.

O.

[Spud]

I’m going to go out on a limb here and say slavery is immoral.  It was wrong then, whether the slaves were treated badly or not, and whether the slave-owners thought so or not, and it’s still wrong now. 

I'll join you on the limb and say that the Old Testament never uses the word 'slave'. You could buy or sell a servant, but you had the same master as him/her which was God. So, according to the NT, just as wives are told to submit to their husbands and husbands to love their wives and give themselves for them, servants are to obey their masters and masters are not to threaten their servants, Ephesians 6:5,9. However, both these ideals have been abused over millennia, and so today the first is taboo and the second is illegal, in order to prevent abuse. Drugs are illegal because they are abused, but can be good if used in the right way, eg antidepressants for someone who can't produce the chemicals in their brain. I can't see a problem with someone who has nothing becoming a servant to someone who can give him food and a roof over his head. That person has saved his life, so in a sense he owes him his life, but that doesn't make him a slave!

So I'll go further out on the limb and say that the word 'slave' by default implies mistreatment, as well as being owned.