The Meaning Of The Bible

[Outrider]

The institution of slavery was in some ways essential to society.

Absolute nonsense.  It may have been as essential to that particular society as it was to, say, British Colonial society in the 17th and 18th century, but it is in no way essential to society or we'd still need it now.

Exodus 22:3 says, "A thief must make full restitution. If he is unable, he is to be sold because of his theft."

Yes, that's my point, your 'holy' book advocates slavery, advocates the buying and selling of people as property...

Kidnapping and selling a person as a slave, however, was a crime.

That's a degree of being terrible people, it's not avoiding being terrible people.

Maybe it was the only alternative to the women having to fend for themselves?

On a practical level, in a rampantly misogynistic society, it possibly was one solution, but this is supposed to be a supremely moral being sending down teachings, isn't it?

O.

[jeremyp]

Absolute nonsense.  It may have been as essential to that particular society as it was to, say, British Colonial society in the 17th and 18th century, but it is in no way essential to society or we'd still need it now.

It's an interesting question. Could the Roman empire, for example, have survived as it did without slaves. I've always thought they were essential to ancient civilisations. But there is an alternate viewpoint that says slavery actually held them back. If you've got an inexhaustible supply of humans to till the field, why develop better technology to do it?

Yes, that's my point, your 'holy' book advocates slavery, advocates the buying and selling of people as property...

I don't think that specific example works. Being sold into slavery is clearly a punishment for the thief. That's not advocacy of slavery in general, just as a means of punishment. If I say rapists need to be locked up, it's not advocacy of forced incarceration for just anybody.

There are plenty of other examples in the Bible where slavery is condoned though. God frequently tells the Israelites to make slaves of their vanquished enemies (at least of the women, the men were usually killed).

[Outrider]

I don't think that specific example works. Being sold into slavery is clearly a punishment for the thief. That's not advocacy of slavery in general, just as a means of punishment. If I say rapists need to be locked up, it's not advocacy of forced incarceration for just anybody.

If the very institution of slavery is unacceptable, then the fact that it was being done to criminals doesn't excuse it - it might be, as a matter of degree, not quite as bad as the whole taking people from rival tribes, but slavery isn't justifiable under any circumstances.

There are plenty of other examples in the Bible where slavery is condoned though. God frequently tells the Israelites to make slaves of their vanquished enemies (at least of the women, the men were usually killed).

Indeed, as a collection of works, slavery is at best tolerated and at worst actively encouraged.

O.

[jeremyp]

If the very institution of slavery is unacceptable, then the fact that it was being done to criminals doesn't excuse it

There are lots of things that are considered unacceptable but that have, nevertheless, been done to criminals. For example they were often put to death in the past but that doesn't mean the people who advocated capital punishment thought it was acceptable for everybody to be put to death.

- it might be, as a matter of degree, not quite as bad as the whole taking people from rival tribes, but slavery isn't justifiable under any circumstances.

Well it isn't now. However, the citizens of Rome who depended on slaves bring in the harvest so they wouldn't starve to death might disagree with you.

The Bible treats slavery as just a fact of life and tries to legislate for it. Slavery isn't good or bad in the Bible, it just is. That makes it problematic (if that's not too much of an understatement) as a moral guide for us because we believe treating people as property is morally abhorrent.

[Outrider]

There are lots of things that are considered unacceptable but that have, nevertheless, been done to criminals. For example they were often put to death in the past but that doesn't mean the people who advocated capital punishment thought it was acceptable for everybody to be put to death.

Agreed, but there are people in the modern day who believe it isn't, and never has been, right for anyone to be put to death for crimes.  Generally speaking, collectively as humanity, we're all pretty much in agreement that slavery is just morally unacceptable, and always should have been.

Well it isn't now. However, the citizens of Rome who depended on slaves bring in the harvest so they wouldn't starve to death might disagree with you.

That society was built around slave labour as a component, the British Colonies as I said above also were, but my point was that it wasn't a necessary element in order to have a society at that time, it wasn't as though there was no way to get by without having slavery.

The Bible treats slavery as just a fact of life and tries to legislate for it. Slavery isn't good or bad in the Bible, it just is. That makes it problematic (if that's not too much of an understatement) as a moral guide for us because we believe treating people as property is morally abhorrent.

Exactly - this is supposed to be, depending on who you talk to, the inspired word of a perfectly moral being, and he can't speak out against slavery?

O.
[/quote]

[Spud]

When was the last time you tried eating a prawn with it's outer "unprotective" layer still attatched?

I had some prawn cocktail crisps a few days ago.

[Spud]

Absolute nonsense.  It may have been as essential to that particular society as it was to, say, British Colonial society in the 17th and 18th century, but it is in no way essential to society or we'd still need it now.

Yes, that's my point, your 'holy' book advocates slavery, advocates the buying and selling of people as property...

In the absence of a prison system, that particular verse uses the concept of buying and selling as property to describe making a thief pay back the value of the stolen goods. If he can't pay for the goods the only thing he has left in exchange for them is his labour, and it's in that sense that the person owns him until the value is paid off.
A law like the one in Leviticus 25:45-6 can be illustrated by a murder of a young person, whose unborn children are also murdered with him. This means that not only can the murderer not pay back his victim but he can't pay back his victim's unborn children. So in the language of the Mosaic law, his punishment is for his labour to be sold for life, and his descendants should share in that sentence. That of course is the alternative to capital punishment and prisons.

[Spud]

Even sittin in the sea
I see food, sea food sees me. [/Just eat ad]

[Outrider]

In the absence of a prison system, that particular verse uses the concept of buying and selling as property to describe making a thief pay back the value of the stolen goods. If he can't pay for the goods the only thing he has left in exchange for them is his labour, and it's in that sense that the person owns him until the value is paid off.
A law like the one in Leviticus 25:45-6 can be illustrated by a murder of a young person, whose unborn children are also murdered with him. This means that not only can the murderer not pay back his victim but he can't pay back his victim's unborn children. So in the language of the Mosaic law, his punishment is for his labour to be sold for life, and his descendants should share in that sentence. That of course is the alternative to capital punishment and prisons.

And this is the work of the font of all morality?  This is the considered output of the perfect, all-knowing being?

O.

[Spud]

And this is the work of the font of all morality?  This is the considered output of the perfect, all-knowing being?

O.

Leaving aside Leviticus 25:45 for now, what problem do you have with Exodus 22:3 as I've explained it, ie using the concept of selling a thief to describe making him pay back the value of the stolen goods. If he can't pay for the goods the only thing he has left in exchange for them is his labour, and it's in that sense that he is 'sold' until the value is paid off.

[Owlswing]

Leaving aside Leviticus 25:45 for now, what problem do you have with Exodus 22:3 as I've explained it, ie using the concept of selling a thief to describe making him pay back the value of the stolen goods. If he can't pay for the goods the only thing he has left in exchange for them is his labour, and it's in that sense that he is 'sold' until the value is paid off.

Only the description 'slave' usually consists of brutality inflicted as part of the normality of the life of the slave.

Also, most of the slaveowners of the American South were hard-arsed Christians and many insisted that their slaves attend church.

[Outrider]

Leaving aside Leviticus 25:45 for now, what problem do you have with Exodus 22:3 as I've explained it, ie using the concept of selling a thief to describe making him pay back the value of the stolen goods. If he can't pay for the goods the only thing he has left in exchange for them is his labour, and it's in that sense that he is 'sold' until the value is paid off.

The idea of selling people, the idea of dehumanising people to the point where they can be traded as a commodity - you don't have a problem with that?

O.

[Spud]

Only the description 'slave' usually consists of brutality inflicted as part of the normality of the life of the slave.

Brutality is not necessary for making a thief work to pay someone back.

Also, most of the slaveowners of the American South were hard-arsed Christians and many insisted that their slaves attend church.

Hard-arsedness is not Christianity. Plus, if slaves had been transported to America then to send them back would have meant they would likely either be recapured or not survive. The root of the problem was the slavers and tribal chiefs who sold Africans to them.

[Spud]

The idea of selling people, the idea of dehumanising people to the point where they can be traded as a commodity - you don't have a problem with that?

O.

Just going by what Exodus 22:3 says, the reason the idea of selling and trading was used is because the money from the sale would go to the robbed person.

Couldn't you equally say that locking people up dehumanises them?

[Outrider]

Just going by what Exodus 22:3 says, the reason the idea of selling and trading was used is because the money from the sale would go to the robbed person.

Fining people, reparations, these aren't concepts I take issue with.

Couldn't you equally say that locking people up dehumanises them?

No, not really - we don't lock up other animals for crimes, we restrict the freedoms of people in response to abuses of those freedoms by those people.  We sell pigs; we own cattle; people are not a commodity to be traded.

O.

[Owlswing]

Brutality is not necessary for making a thief work to pay someone back.

Slavery was not necessary! Just getting them to labour for a reduced wage would have achieved reparation.

Hard-arsedness is not Christianity. Plus, if slaves had been transported to America then to send them back would have meant they would likely either be recaptured or not survive. The root of the problem was the slavers and tribal chiefs who sold Africans to them.

My dear Spud, you cannot just disown people who do not follow your views of Christianity. These people attended Church, took Communion and were blessed by the priest in the name of Jesus Christ!

They WERE CHRISTIAN whether you like it or not!

Your twisted religion preaches some terminally distasteful things which should have been written out of that unpleasant book yonks back in human history.

(Comment deleted in an act of self-preservation of my membership of this Forum!)

And as to returning them after being sent to America THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TRANSPORTED TO AMERICA IN THE FIRST PLACE!

)O(

[Spud]

Fining people, reparations, these aren't concepts I take issue with.

No, not really - we don't lock up other animals for crimes, we restrict the freedoms of people in response to abuses of those freedoms by those people.  We sell pigs; we own cattle; people are not a commodity to be traded.

O.

Do you think making someone sit in a cell all day is better for them in terms of learning not to rob, than making them work to pay back what they stole? What would prevent re-offending more effectively?

[Spud]

Slavery was not necessary! Just getting them to labour for a reduced wage would have achieved reparation.

I think you're conflating making someone work to pay someone back, with taking an innocent person and selling them as a slave, which I would say is what slavery is.

My dear Spud, you cannot just disown people who do not follow your views of Christianity. These people attended Church, took Communion and were blessed by the priest in the name of Jesus Christ!

Christianity is obeying Christ. If these guys believed they were helping the slaves by paying a slaver for them, treating them well and giving them freedom after a certain time then they weren't doing anything wrong.

They WERE CHRISTIAN whether you like it or not!

In name only, if they were hard-arsed.

Your twisted religion preaches some terminally distasteful things which should have been written out of that unpleasant book yonks back in human history.

Which bits do you think should be taken out?

(Comment deleted in an act of self-preservation of my membership of this Forum!)

And as to returning them after being sent to America THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TRANSPORTED TO AMERICA IN THE FIRST PLACE!

)O(

Precisely, and it was this that had to be stopped, or changed to a system of temporary work in exchange for freedom to live as free men.

[Outrider]

Do you think making someone sit in a cell all day is better for them in terms of learning not to rob, than making them work to pay back what they stole? What would prevent re-offending more effectively?

Well, firstly, neither of those is actually a particularly effective means of rehabilitation, but to an extent that's beside the point; the point is that neither of them requires people to be classified as property and owned in order to implement.  I ask again, because I note that you didn't directly address the question the last time, do you not have a problem with the idea of people being reduced to a commodity to be traded?

O.

[jeremyp]

I think you're conflating making someone work to pay someone back, with taking an innocent person and selling them as a slave, which I would say is what slavery is.

Agree. Exodus 22:3:

The thief shall make restitution, but if unable to do so, shall be sold for the theft.

What do you think being sold means in this context? I think it means they will be sold as a slave.

Christianity is obeying Christ. If these guys believed they were helping the slaves by paying a slaver for them, treating them well and giving them freedom after a certain time then they weren't doing anything wrong.

I would say not freeing them as soon as they could is not exactly right.

In name only, if they were hard-arsed.

Henry VIII was an exemplary Christian. The Pope commended him for it, but he was pretty hard arsed. You are perpetrating the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Which bits do you think should be taken out?

I don't go much on putting people to death for being gay or adulterers or being raped and not crying out or working on the Sabbath.

Precisely, and it was this that had to be stopped, or changed to a system of temporary work in exchange for freedom to live as free men.

Given that slaves were transported to the Americas, it was pretty much impossible to send them back once they gained their freedom. Firstly, the Atlantic crossing would have been quite dangerous and would have killed many of them. Secondly, there were probably very few first generation slaves left at the time they achieved emancipation. It would have been an act of cruelty to send people to a different continent to the one on which they had been living their whole lives.

You also couldn't just say "hey you're free" and leave them to their own devices. That would have been pretty cruel too.

The above considerations about freeing slaves is just one aspect of why they should never have been made slaves in the first place.

[Owlswing]

Why do I get the feeling that discussing Christianity with a Christian is very similar to discussing Arab/Israeli politics with the Wailing Wall?

Owlswing

)O(

[Spud]

What do you think being sold means in this context? I think it means they will be sold as a slave.

As a slave in the full sense of the word? It means to be exchanged for money, presumably for an agreed amount of time.

Henry VIII was an exemplary Christian. The Pope commended him for it, but he was pretty hard arsed. You are perpetrating the No True Scotsman fallacy.

It's not for me to say whether or not he repented to God, but judging by his actions, he didn't.

I don't go much on putting people to death for being gay or adulterers or being raped and not crying out or working on the Sabbath.

These were the punishments that those offences deserved because they manifested  rebellion against God. The NT says that the law was intended to make Israel conscious of sin. In John 8 Jesus said that anyone who is without sin could stone an adulteress; that meant that the deserved punishment was no longer appropriate. They have served their purpose. These punishments were temporary, to show God's standard and how we fall short of it.

[Gordon]

But if someone can't make restitution, what should be done? Let him off without punishment?

You could try forgiveness: I understand that many Christians are quite keen on forgiveness.

Agreed, but if they reduce themselves to the level of an animal by stealing, then they can expect to be treated like one.

Thank God (pun intended) that I'm not a Christian if this is an example of how some (but not all) Christians think.

[Owlswing]

You could try forgiveness: I understand that many Christians are quite keen on forgiveness.

Thank God (pun intended) that I'm not a Christian if this is an example of how some (but not all) Christians think.

Come on Gordon, you know as well as I, it is repeatedly shown on this forum, that Christians are incapable of thinking without a Bible to hand to search for answers! Usually bloody silly ones, but that just about describes all Christians!

Init!

[Nearly Sane]

Come on Gordon, you know as well as I, it is repeatedly shown on this forum, that Christians are incapable of thinking without a Bible to hand to search for answers! Usually bloody silly ones, but that just about describes all Christians!

Init!

No, there have been a number of Christians both capable of thought, and lovely people. Anchorman and Gonnagle spring to mind. Also given most of my family are practising Christians, including me sainted mother, I don't find this sort of generalisation useful.