Part of an ongoing series looking at all the many passages in the Bible that deal with wealth and poverty issues. You can see the links to the other passages in the series under the heading "The Bible and Economics" below.
Today, I'm looking at various passages in the 22nd and 23rd chapters of the book of Deuteronomy, having already explored the first 20 chapters earlier in the year.
You can see others in this series in the "Bible and Economics" link below (on the left).
If you see your fellow Israelite’s ox or sheep straying, do not ignore it but be sure to take it back to its owner.
If they do not live near you or if you do not know who owns it, take it home with you and keep it until they come looking for it. Then give it back. Do the same if you find their donkey or cloak or anything else they have lost. Do not ignore it.
If you see your fellow Israelite’s donkey or ox fallen on the road, do not ignore it. Help the owner get it to its feet...
There is just a simple teaching to remind people to be fair and responsible. "Finding" something that does not belong to you does not make it yours. In fact, you have an obligation to try to get it back to its owner.
Next, we see some rather unsavory divorce rules that were a product of their times...
If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” then the young woman’s father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin.
Her father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.”
Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, and the elders shall take the man and punish him.
They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the young woman’s father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives...
Divorce is covered a good bit in the Bible and, despite the huge difference in culture between now and then, perhaps we can see why: Women were owned. They did not have much in the way of liberty, as we count liberty today. They were not as free to just go out and get a job.
Because of that, there were protections built in for women in Israel's divorce laws. Otherwise, a man could marry, shame and kick out a woman and move on with no responsibility for the desperate economic circumstances that might leave her in.
Here is another (even more unsavory) rule in the same vein...
If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
Earlier, we saw that an ENGAGED woman who is raped, the rapist must be killed.. But an unengaged woman who is raped, well, the rapist just has to pay off the father for the economic damage done.
Unsavory as hell, but it touches on economic issues, so I'll post it here...
If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master. Let them live among you wherever they like and in whatever town they choose. Do not oppress them...
Slavery is never overtly condemned in the Bible, but you do have passages like this one that suggest at its immorality...
Do not charge a fellow Israelite interest, whether on money or food or anything else that may earn interest. You may charge a foreigner interest, but not a fellow Israelite...
And a ruling forbidding charging a fellow Israelite interest, but charging interest to foreigners is okay.
Do you reckon that Christian bankers today think they ought to live by that same principle? Do you?
The topics of marriage/divorce, slavery and interest are all touched on in the Bible and all have greater economic ramifications. Perhaps as part of this series, I'll group some of those passages together to see what we might learn from them as a whole.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
The Bible and Economics
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
82 comments:
Finding the possession of another and holding it for the owner is not a news flash.
I'm not sure I understand to what you are applying the term "unsavory". To the guy who tries to dump his new wife by slandering her? The law forces him to keep his vow. This appears to be putting God's notion of marriage to a finer point than was understood up until this point. Jesus later clarifies further. Assume also the impact of knowing this kind of law in advance of marrying. How many would enter into an arrangement lightly?
For the next "unsavory" rule, this puts the emphasis on the the sex act as consummation of the union between a man and a woman who then become one flesh. As the woman was a virgin not yet intended for another, her prospects after having been raped were no longer very good. One must keep in mind what likely went before the institution of these "unsavory" rules in order to understand if the rules improved things.
There is nothing whatsoever in the slave rule that suggests any judgement of the institution one way or the other. What is suggested is that the slave had some reason to take refuge, which would indicate the master was not acting in a manner that God would approve. That says nothing about slavery itself. You're stretching here.
I can't recall anything in Scripture that speaks of the business of loans where interest is the means by which such businesses earn income. I believe all such passages speak to personal loans, as if you hit up your brother for a sawbuck 'till payday. He shouldn't expect interest when you pay him back a year later.
I think we should try an experiment. One of us should write a post saying the exact opposite of what we actually think about a given topic. Then wait and see. My guess: Art will come along tell us how "goofy" our position is, how we haven't thought about it, how stupid we are, and proceed to insist that we are wrong.
Which exercise would prove that he doesn't really believe the stuff he writes (largely because he demonstrates such a ridiculous lack of understanding on pretty much any topic). It's just about being contrary.
"Unsavory" in the sense of women being treated like property whose value goes up and down, property to be "given away," and yes, "dumped." "Unsavory" in the sense that one could simply pay money for a rape, AND THEN marry the victim??!
You don't find that unsavory, at least by modern standards?
I certainly do.
Marshall...
That says nothing about slavery itself. You're stretching here.
1. I said simply that it suggests at its immorality.
2. Do you think slavery is wrong in and of itself, Marshall?
I heard one of you all recently saying that it's wrong only because it's against our laws. The suggestion being that slavery isn't immoral in and of itself, only in how it's done. So, do YOU think slavery is in and of itself morally wrong, Marshall?
As to interest, Marshall, read at least the wikipedia information about it, so you're starting from a place of at least a little information.
Geoffrey...
One of us should write a post saying the exact opposite of what we actually think about a given topic.
Actually, I think these posts of mine on the Bible and Economics sort of serve that purpose. For the most part, I don't offer too much commentary in the initial post, just the text. From there, the disagreement comes.
On this one, I did offer a bit more information than normal, but it wasn't so much my opinion ("unsavory" was, but that was off topic), but just some background information/thoughts.
But if you go back and look at others in the Economics series, and you'll see that oft-times they do raise objections when all I was doing was posting the text of the Bible. So, maybe that sort of proves your point...
Good points, Dan. Good points.
Personally, I like them.
Our congregation was trying to either sell or rent a previous church building, and one of the prospective buyers was a Muslim congregation looking to move their worship space out from the suburbs (there is a Buddhist monastery and a Hindu temple in an old church about four miles from Cornerstone UMC). I was talking with an assistant manager at my former place of employment who is active in the Muslim community where he lives, and he told me that if the group was ready to buy, they would pay cash, because the Q'uran forbids lending or borrowing at interest.
I found that a wonderful little bit of information. Imagine, a group of folks actually adhering to the spirit of the text that has formed them!
The Amish tend that way, too, as well as some Mennonites.
Just an FYI as to why it gets frustrating discussing Scripture interpretation with you, any why we find your interpretation so suspect.
"Do not charge a fellow Israelite interest, whether on money or food or anything else that may earn interest. You may charge a foreigner interest, but not a fellow Israelite..."
And a ruling forbidding charging a fellow Israelite interest, but charging interest to foreigners is okay.
Do you reckon that Christian bankers today think they ought to live by that same principle? Do you?
We've talked before about how there are different sorts of commands in the Old Testament. Some are universal moral pronouncements, some are ceremonial laws, and some are for Israel only. I recall that you agreed that there were different kinds of laws, but we may have disagreed on which category some laws fell into.
Here we have a rather clear, unambiguous example of the last category; those only for Israel. "Do not charge a fellow Israelite interest" very clearly assumes that the person being address is also an Israelite, else "fellow Israelite" has no meaning. And yet you seem to think, or would at least suggest, that it applies to Christians of any nationality.
Again, your interest in the liberal version of "social justice" colors everything you read in the Bible, to the point where you skip over the blatantly obvious. You claim to "take the Bible seriously", but only where it fits your preconceived notions, and where it doesn't, you find a way to shoehorn it in or apply it where it clearly doesn't, such as this.
I'm sorry if I was less than clear, Doug. I was not suggesting this LAW, which was indeed, specfically for Israel, might ought to be applied today. If you'll look at what I wrote...
Do you reckon that Christian bankers today think they ought to live by that same principle?
You'll note that I was trying to suggest/ASK if that principle - DON'T charge interest, at least to your own countrymen/community - ought to be a more universally applied one.
There are some rules in the OT that are clearly, specifically for Israel (well, really ALL those rules in the OT are specifically for Israel). For instance, the Sabbath rules about setting aside some portion of your goods for the poor and foreigners. But I wonder sometimes if THE PRINCIPLE ought to be considered more universal.
This is what I was doing here: Asking is this principle one that ought to be universal.
Marshall has made it clear that his hunch is that it ought to (perhaps?) be universal when we're speaking of casual loans (as opposed to bank loans). What do you think?
As I suggested earlier, I think I will attempt to do a post specifically on loans and the Bible here soon. Or maybe post someone else's thoughts on that topic.
Sorry for any confusion.
Doug...
your interest in the liberal version of "social justice" colors everything you read in the Bible
Actually, to be technically correct, my view of social justice has been colored by the Bible. You'll recall that I was more conservative and it was Bible study and meditation that led me down this path, not the other way around.
Dan has been cherry picking what he likes form the Bible and disregarding the rest for years, why does this surprise anyone?
Drood has been engaging in ad hom attacks and making unsupported accusations for years, why does more of the same surprise anyone?
You'll note that I was trying to suggest/ASK if that principle - DON'T charge interest, at least to your own countrymen/community - ought to be a more universally applied one.
OK, I saw the second "Do you?" as more of a "Well, do you think that Christian bankers ought to?", re-asking the question for emphasis. I take it, then, that what you meant was, specifically, do I? My mistake.
It's just that suggesting in any way that this should apply to Christian bankers seems something of a non-sequitur, given how specific it is.
I would agree with Marshall and say the answer is yes. As he noted, Jesus said to lend without expecting to be repaid, and charging interest on a casual loan implicitly expects payback.
Actually, to be technically correct, my view of social justice has been colored by the Bible. You'll recall that I was more conservative and it was Bible study and meditation that led me down this path, not the other way around.
I understand that was your path, but you clearly, given some of the writers you've quoted from in the past, took on your new beliefs partially because they made sense to you. But I would question some of those influences. I have seen even worse examples of "social justice" informing Scripture interpretation that I have wondered how common it is.
One guy, who was trying to become an Anglican priest, posted a blog entry about how the parable of the sower and the seed was really an economic one, told against both Rome and the temple priests who squandered the money. It was no use in pointing out to him that, of all the parables, this one was the most expressly explained in detail right after it was told. No, never mind that Jesus said precisely what the parable meant, this fellow decided there was a "social justice" message somewhere in there and he was going to extract it no matter what.
Now whether or not he started out as a conservative or not, his philosophy informed his interpretation completely, and nothing the Bible said would change that philosophy. That's the danger I see.
Is it not you, Dan, who chides for what you believe is the projection of modern biases on OT passages? Here, you mention these marital passages as "unsavory", boldly comparing it to modern standards. I explained what the passages intended to do, and that was to improve things compared to ancient standards.
"2. Do you think slavery is wrong in and of itself, Marshall?"
No. Why should I? There's no indication of judgement against the institution in any way, shape or form in Scripture, including the passage you chose to present here. You're projecting once again your modern biases on the text to inject what isn't there. If a slave is taking refuge, he is obviously running from something seriously wrong. It doesn't suggest that what was wrong was that he was a slave. Perhaps the master was oppressive. Considering NT passages, a slave is supposed to obey his master, so I have to assume that the slave is running from a bad situation that slavery itself does not manifest.
More later, except for this:
Geoffrey is welcome to post what he thinks would be the opposite of what he believes. That would be an interesting exercise just to see if he understands what the opposite of what he believes is truly what I believe. I'm betting he'll make a fool of himself and run away again.
Marshall...
No. Why should I? There's no indication of judgement against the institution in any way, shape or form in Scripture, including the passage you chose to present here. You're projecting once again your modern biases on the text to inject what isn't there.
1. I did not say that this text condemned slavery. No projection on my part.
2. WHY should we consider slavery in and of itself wrong??
Oh, I don't know. How about: Because it is self-evidently WRONG to OWN another person???!
You see, Marshall, this is part of the problem many of you in your tribe have: You're reducing the Bible down to a mere rule book and, if it's condemned in its pages, it's wrong, and if it's not condemned in its pages, it's not wrong... This is a rather stilted and wrongheaded way to look at questions of morality.
It's this sort of morality that the atheists would mock, saying, "If you can't even condemn slavery as a moral wrong, then your morality is not much use..."
We can consider things wrong that aren't condemned in the Bible, you know, Marshall.
You know, the first conservative person I remember noting that slavery itself was not wrong was "Edwin Drood," the anonymous little sniper. I didn't really put much stock in it because he is even less serious a conservative commenter than folk like Marshall.
But now, Marshall too, has come out with this position - that slavery itself is not wrong...!!
Is this a consistent position of the Religious Right that I'm not familiar with?
Or are Marshall and Edwin just outliers?
Doug...
I saw the second "Do you?" as more of a "Well, do you think that Christian bankers ought to?", re-asking the question for emphasis. I take it, then, that what you meant was, specifically, do I? My mistake.
Yes, specifically, "Do you?" (whoever "you" may be) was my intent. No problem, I see how it could be taken the other way.
My apologies it was not clear enough.
Doug, since my last comment (above), I've heard from another conservative who says that, No, slavery is not morally wrong in and of itself, it depends upon the circumstances.
From there, I TRIED to get some clarification. He sounded like all MODERN examples of slavery (where someone is kidnapped against their will and taken into forced slavery for the rest of their life) are morally wrong, but he was pretty clear that he thought indentured servitude was NOT immoral, as that was covered in the Bible and not called immoral.
I asked him about the forced slavery found in the Bible (of a sort that IS like more modern slavery) but could not get an answer from him on that point. So, he appears to be hedging his bets and saying that he's not willing to say all slavery is morally wrong.
He SEEMED to be opposed to the idea of some things being "self-evidently" right or wrong, but again, I could not get a clear answer.
So, I say that to ask you, Doug: Do you think slavery is wrong in and of itself? Self-evidently wrong?
Marshall...
Here, you mention these marital passages as "unsavory", boldly comparing it to modern standards.
I didn't say it was or wasn't unsavory by their standards. I was speaking specifically of OUR standards. By OUR standards, these sexist, violent, ugly behaviors are unsavory in the extreme - IMMORAL, even. EVIL, even.
Doug...
It's just that suggesting in any way that this should apply to Christian bankers seems something of a non-sequitur, given how specific it is.
Then I would want to ask you, Doug, seeing how specific the command for "men to not lay with men, if they do, Kill 'em" was specifically directed to early Israelis in the context of Canaanite idol worshippers, would you argue then that THAT law was specifically for those ancient Israelites, not Christian bankers or others?
So, I say that to ask you, Doug: Do you think slavery is wrong in and of itself? Self-evidently wrong?
First, "slavery" as practiced by the early Hebrews was nothing like slavery as it is commonly understood today. This rather lengthy piece goes into how Hebrew "slavery" was radically different, not just compared to now, but compared to its contemporaries. Just take a quick look at section 1 to get a taste for how different.
So when the Old Testament uses the word "slavery", it is talking about something that was voluntary on the part of the "slave" (outside of the conquering of Canaan, which one could say was God's judgement on the people), and gave them rights above and beyond mere property (that is to say, they were not considered property).
God instituted it and gave it specific rules. It worked to the (economic) benefit of both parties, and did not degrade the dignity of the "slave".
Is that "self-evidently wrong"? I would say no, because a) God instituted it and b) nothing about the arrangement was forced or had sinful intent.
I don't like this adjective "self-evidently" because there are so many things the world considers self-evidently right that are taught against in the Bible. Self-evidence is subject to self-delusion.
As to modern slavery, or the slavery practiced by ancient Israel's contemporaries, kidnapping, forcing into servitude and inhumane treatment are not things the Bible condones, so, never mind "self-evidence", it's wrong.
So is "slavery self-evidently wrong"? Depends on what you're talking about,
So, you fall along with the others I've spoken with so far. Not "slavery is wrong" but, "it depends..."
A couple of thoughts...
1. Where you said...
I would say no, because a) God instituted it and b) nothing about the arrangement was forced or had sinful intent.
There is "forced" and there is "forced..." A person who finds themselves in dire poverty in ancient Israel and who has no other options beyond starving, they feel "forced" to sell their child into slavery.
I would call that a forced slavery myself. The child is not willingly going into slavery (children had no say in such matters, I believe) and the parents feel forced by circumstances. I'd still call that forced all around.
I'd say that sort of indentured servitude is a lesser form of slavery, but it's still a forced slavery.
2. BUT, setting that aside, you acknowledge that there WAS this other sort of slavery - where a people are conquered and, against their will and potentially for the rest of their lives, they are forced into slavery against their will.
THAT sort of slavery is more aligned to what we might call modern slavery models.
So, setting aside the indentured servitude model, do you think that FORCED slavery - against one's will, slavery of children and whole families against their will - do you think THAT slavery is always wrong?
Thanks for the answers.
So, you fall along with the others I've spoken with so far. Not "slavery is wrong" but, "it depends..."
Well now wait a minute. I thought I was pretty clear what the differences were in why and how it depends. So let me ask you; was what you're calling "slavery" among ancient Israel, instituted by God, wrong?
I said:
It's just that suggesting in any way that this should apply to Christian bankers seems something of a non-sequitur, given how specific it is.
You replied:
Then I would want to ask you, Doug, seeing how specific the command for "men to not lay with men, if they do, Kill 'em" was specifically directed to early Israelis in the context of Canaanite idol worshippers, would you argue then that THAT law was specifically for those ancient Israelites, not Christian bankers or others?
Dan, God, in the entire Old Testament, was speaking to the Israelites. By your suggestion, none of the concepts of the Old Testament, even the Ten Commandments, would apply to anyone else at any time. This is not even remotely what I said.
The bit about charging interest talked specifically about fellow Israelites. Nobody but another Israelite could have a fellow Israelite. Right inside the command, we are told who this is for.
Now, I don't know precisely where the verse you're referring to is, but here it is from Leviticus 18:22, "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." This is a chapter all about proper sexual relations, and not just for the Levites; it was for the whole nation of Israel. The context is in verse 1.
The LORD said to Moses, “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘I am the LORD your God. You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices. You must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. I am the LORD your God. Keep my decrees and laws, for the man who obeys them will live by them. I am the LORD.
So, don't do what the people did where you used to live, and don't do what the people do where you will live. Follow my laws. And here they are...
That's it. That's the context. And the chapter goes on to delineate, in a dozen verses, what sort of sexual relations are not permitted within the family structure, among others, and with the same sex. Some say to just don't do it, other acts are called dishonorable, detestable, defiling and wicked.
You would have a much, much more difficult time trying to suggest that these laws were just for the Israelites alone. Bringing up the fact that God addressed Israel when He gave those rules is not a factor, since, if you really believe that, nothing in the OT would apply to us now.
Doug...
I thought I was pretty clear what the differences were in why and how it depends.
I think you WERE pretty clear, but to be sure, I asked a clarifying question, which remains unanswered.
You mentioned the "voluntary" slavery spoken of in the OT AND the involuntary type...
something that was voluntary on the part of the "slave" ... = Voluntary.
...(outside of the conquering of Canaan, which one could say was God's judgement on the people) = INvoluntary.
Two types, right? That's what I'm hearing you acknowledge (and, of course, there ARE two - at least two broad - types of slavery. The captured people of other nations were not voluntary slaves).
Going on from there, you said...
God instituted it and gave it specific rules. It worked to the (economic) benefit of both parties, and did not degrade the dignity of the "slave".
Here you appear to be speaking of only the voluntary type of slavery. The captured slaves of other nations were not to the benefit of both parties, right?
You continued...
Is that "self-evidently wrong"? I would say no, because a) God instituted it and b) nothing about the arrangement was forced or had sinful intent.
And I am asking you, WHAT is it that you are saying is not wrong - the voluntary or the involuntary type? Or both?
I think I am hearing you say that the voluntary slavery in the Bible was not inherently wrong.
But as to the involuntary type mentioned, I'm seeking clarification of your position.
Thanks.
Doug...
By your suggestion, none of the concepts of the Old Testament, even the Ten Commandments, would apply to anyone else at any time. This is not even remotely what I said.
Nor is that what I am suggesting or saying.
Doug...
The bit about charging interest talked specifically about fellow Israelites.
And the bit about "men laying with men" was directed SPECIFICALLY to ancient Israelites. You cited the passage yourself...
“Speak to the Israelites and say to THEM: ‘I am the LORD your God. YOU must not do as they do in Egypt, where YOU used to live, and YOU must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing YOU.
Do not follow their practices. YOU must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees.
Who was God giving these commands to? Everyone or specifically ancient Israel as they settled in the land of Canaan after leaving Egypt? Clearly, the text shows who the commands are specifically for.
Does that mean we need to ignore all the commands given THEM or that they have no commonalities to rules for us today? No. It just means that we can't presume these rules are universally valid. They aren't, they were specifically for ancient Israel, by your admission.
Doug...
Bringing up the fact that God addressed Israel when He gave those rules is not a factor, since, if you really believe that, nothing in the OT would apply to us now.
Actually, I really DO believe that AND I don't think that "nothing in the OT" informs us now. Reading the history of God's interactions of Israel is extremely helpful. We see human nature and God's nature in play and it helps inform us about our relationship with God.
What it doesn't do, though, is provide us a point by point rule book for us to use, that's not the purpose of the OT for us.
I really should know better . . .
Here's why I think the emerging discussion is going off track. Why are we reading the Bible? What are all these stories, myths, poems, fanciful tales, legends, prophetic calls to repentance, Gospel narratives, epistles, and apocalyptic visions being offered to us? What coheres in the midst of what is an obvious surface incoherence?
The coherence is the story of God's love for creation, a love that never ends, never gives up, never tires in its unflagging desire to be with us by always showing us that God is for us. For creation.
Asking specific questions regarding the practice of slavery, the lending of money at interest, dietary practices, sexual mores, gender roles, and the like all miss the point. Not because these things aren't important; rather, because one can lose sight of the overarching narrative if one gets down too far in to the weeds about whether the Bible supports or doesn't support this or that contingent social practice.
Which is why the theological reading of Scripture is so important. The Bible is God's love story for this wayward thing called creation. Did the Israelites practice slavery? Sure. So, they justified it.
Duh.
They also practiced polygamy. They justified warfare against their neighbors in theological terms, seeing in either victory or defeat the presence or absence of divine favor.
The end is listless.
Wouldn't a far better question, a far more Biblical question be how should we who are claimed by the God witnessed in Scripture to live so as to be faithful to our understanding of the God who is love, a love for all creation, an overflowing, prodigal love?
I think I am hearing you say that the voluntary slavery in the Bible was not inherently wrong.
But as to the involuntary type mentioned, I'm seeking clarification of your position.
I've answered this. To wit:
As to modern slavery, or the slavery practiced by ancient Israel's contemporaries, kidnapping, forcing into servitude and inhumane treatment are not things the Bible condones, so, never mind "self-evidence", it's wrong.
And of when Israel practiced it at God's command, I said:
So when the Old Testament uses the word "slavery", it is talking about something that was voluntary on the part of the "slave" (outside of the conquering of Canaan, which one could say was God's judgement on the people)..."
Further, we've discussed this before and you know my position on when God gets to decide what actions are taken in His name, including dealing with prisoners in specific situations.
So I don't see what would need even further clarification.
Who was God giving these commands to? Everyone or specifically ancient Israel as they settled in the land of Canaan after leaving Egypt? Clearly, the text shows who the commands are specifically for.
Wow, really? You must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. You really think that, because God wasn't talking to Dan Trabue, that these law and decrees of God don't necessarily apply to you? You think that because God didn't tell Moses to address the entire planet that these wouldn't necessarily be universal morals?
But consider this: Moses was God's spokesman to Israel. Israel was God's expression of Himself to the world. God revealed Himself to the world at that time through Israel. God showed the world what happened when you followed His laws (and when you didn't).
"You shall have no other gods before Me" is just a good idea but not necessarily universally valid?
If God calls certain practices "detestable", that's sounds like something that should always be avoided, no matter who He happens to be speaking to at the moment.
Paul wrote to the Romans, the Corinthians, the Ephesians, and a host of others. Doesn't sound like he was writing to me.
Wow, I'm sorry Dan, but if your exegesis permits you to this conceit, we really have little to discuss.
Geoff:
Asking specific questions regarding the practice of slavery, the lending of money at interest, dietary practices, sexual mores, gender roles, and the like all miss the point. Not because these things aren't important; rather, because one can lose sight of the overarching narrative if one gets down too far in to the weeds about whether the Bible supports or doesn't support this or that contingent social practice.
I understand your point and agree with it to a certain level. At the same time, I think that God did set certain boundaries in order to help us live out God's love. The Gospel in a word is indeed Love, but the Bible then lays out examples for to follow, including, yes, concrete steps to follow (rules, if you will) to answer some of the more common questions.
If the Bible were just a scrap of paper that said "Love God, and love one another", that would be truthful, but give us no direction as to how to do that. Instead, He revealed, not just who He is, but who He planned us to be with specific examples rather than just vague generalities.
Be perfect even as your Father in Heaven is perfect? How in the world do I do that? Well, here are some things to get you started. Follow these, and then continue to listen to Me.
Grace and truth. Both are required.
Doug...
we've discussed this before and you know my position on when God gets to decide what actions are taken in His name, including dealing with prisoners in specific situations.
So I don't see what would need even further clarification.
Well, it would help that I could understand your actual position if you could just directly answer the question asked of you. Why wouldn't you want your exact position to be known and, rather than give wandering, indirect and vague answers, step up and make it clear:
IS forced, against-their-will slavery always wrong, in YOUR opinion?
I can easily answer that question: Yes, OWNING a person against their will and making them your slaves to do your bidding, THAT IS WRONG, it doesn't matter how nicely you treat them. "Owning people" is an affront to human dignity.
It would seem like an easy, straightforward question that is not difficult to answer directly.
But instead, you point to the indentured slavery that was ONE of the types of slavery in the Bible. But I'm not asking about THAT slavery right now. I'm talking about the kind I specifically asked about.
IF you think that God might sometimes command people to "own" other people contrary to their will, then SAY SO. You are welcome to your opinions about God.
If you agree with me, then SAY SO.
If you think generally you agree with me, but that you think there might be exceptions, then SAY SO, and then list some examples of possible exceptions.
All that would be helpful and would clarify your position. As it is, I'm just not sure if you think owning another person against their will is always wrong (self-evidently wrong) or not.
Why not clarify directly? It's not a trick question.
Dan, this is getting exceedingly tedious. Once more, for those who've not been paying attention.
Your question: IS forced, against-their-will slavery always wrong, in YOUR opinion?
This is not a Yes/No question, in my opinion, because, as I have previously stated here and in other threads, with all of my reasons why I believe it, that while there are things that are always wrong for us, God can make exceptions. As I have stated previously, I think He did that for ancient Israel, when He spoke directly to them through the prophets, but I don't think He does that now. I will not restate all the details as to my reasoning behind that, because I've done it. You've read it, so I shouldn't have to explain it again, but you keep asking.
Given that, I will say, for a third time:
So when the Old Testament uses the word "slavery", it is talking about something that was voluntary on the part of the "slave" (outside of the conquering of Canaan, which one could say was God's judgement on the people)...
As I said previously, when God commanded it He was giving the Israelites permission to carry out His wrath and judgement. It is not wrong to follow God's direction. Therefore, to be painfully clear and connect all the dots, it was not wrong when Israel did it when God commanded it.
Other that that, I will quote myself once again:
As to modern slavery, or the slavery practiced by ancient Israel's contemporaries, kidnapping, forcing into servitude and inhumane treatment are not things the Bible condones, so, never mind "self-evidence", it's wrong.
I did use the word "wrong". It is wrong except when God commands it, and, again, He doesn't work that way anymore because, as I said previously, He is no longer revealing His nature through a single nation/race.
If this is not clear enough for you, this is no longer my problem, if it ever was. Everything I have stated here I have stated before, both in this thread and others. This whole bit about continually asking for an answer when I have given it quite clearly is tiresome.
"Owning people" is an affront to human dignity."
What if the owned person prefers being owned? What if the owned person came to prefer it after a time? What if the owned person was taken by force and came to think, "Hey, this ain't so bad! My master's a cool dude and I'm always warm and fed and he make me dress in these bitchin' threads!" What then?
How can owning a person be an affront to someone who thinks a woman can choose to put her own unborn child to death? She doesn't "own" that child in any way, shape or form. Most slaves aren't put to death by being torn asunder or scalded with chemicals. There's an incredible disconnect here.
So, as Dan finds others who do not see "slavery" as inherently wrong, he moves to particular forms of slavery. Hmmm. "Not all forms..." Where have I heard that before?
Marshall...
What if the owned person was taken by force and came to think, "Hey, this ain't so bad! My master's a cool dude and I'm always warm and fed and he make me dress in these bitchin' threads!" What then?
I get it, Marshall. You want to stake out the position that owning people is NOT an affront to human dignity. You are welcome to that position. I find it patently ridiculous, but you're welcome to it.
Doug...
This is not a Yes/No question, in my opinion
No problem, then all you have to do is point it out and still give as direct an answer as possible. Which you've now done. That's all I was asking - a fairly straightforward answer which did not need to be yes/no.
In this case, though, it WAS yes/no WITH a caveat. Yes, it is wrong, you are saying, BUT there IS at least one exception: In the case of God commanding us to own slaves, then it's not wrong.
Owning people as slave labor is wrong, you say, UNLESS God commands us to do this, which otherwise would be wrong.
That's straightforward. Thanks.
I had said...
Who was God giving these commands to? Everyone or specifically ancient Israel as they settled in the land of Canaan after leaving Egypt? Clearly, the text shows who the commands are specifically for.
To which Doug responded...
Wow, really? You must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. You really think that, because God wasn't talking to Dan Trabue, that these law and decrees of God don't necessarily apply to you? You think that because God didn't tell Moses to address the entire planet that these wouldn't necessarily be universal morals?
How is MY looking at the text and seeing, "THIS IS FOR YOU, ISRAEL" any different than your looking at the text and seeing, "When you deal with A FELLOW ISRAEL..."? In both cases, it is clear that these words were for Israel.
Now, does that in ANY WAY imply that OTHER people in different times and places ought not ALSO not murder or steal? Of course not. All we BOTH are doing is acknowledging that THE TEXT is specifically for Israel.
Think of it this way: If I wrote out a recipe to my friend and said, "Friend, first you add x, y and z, mix them, and cook them..." that text would have been specifically for my friend. That's just acknowledging reality. BUT, there still would be applications beyond that friend.
In Israel's case, you seem to make it quite clear that AT LEAST SOME of those rules were specifically for Israel, and I agree. I'm just going further and saying THEY ALL were specifically for Israel. Which is NOT to say that we today ought not kill someone or that we ought not have a plan in place to care for the needy, just that these rules can't be assumed to be universal simply because they're in the Bible.
YOU DON'T THINK THIS YOURSELF, my friend. I don't see how what you're saying is any different than what I'm saying.
This "conceit" is not any different than your conceit, so does that mean you have little to discuss with yourself?
No need to go ballistic, I'm just agreeing WITH YOU that when the bible TELLS us, "These rules are for ancient Israel," that this is what it means. Doesn't mean that we can't be informed by Israel's relationship with God, it just is acknowledging the text for what it actually says.
How is MY looking at the text and seeing, "THIS IS FOR YOU, ISRAEL" any different than your looking at the text and seeing, "When you deal with A FELLOW ISRAEL..."? In both cases, it is clear that these words were for Israel.
No, they are different. Speaking of someone as a "fellow Israelite" means you are one. That's what "fellow" means. No ambiguity. The law is for an Israelite specifically.
But when God tells His spokesman for Israel, Moses, to say something to Israel, that says nothing other than "speak to the people I've been telling you to speak to". Indeed, it's just, as you say, acknowledging reality. That is all.
But going from there to saying that, therefore, those things that God Himself says are detestable are only detestable when Israel does them, and therefore don't necessarily apply to us, is going way beyond that. The recipe, in your example, is still the recipe, and it works for everyone. You are reading more into it what you say, ""These rules are for ancient Israel," that this is what it means."
If your note said, "Friend, go to your next-door neighbor at 615 Oak Street...", it would clearly be addressed specifically for your friend who live next door to 615 Oak Street. Same as "fellow Israelite". Then that's a clearly different message, just for your friend.
So now that God has simply said that Moses should speak to the people he's assigned to speak to, God says, "You must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. I am the LORD your God. Keep my decrees and laws, for the man who obeys them will live by them. I am the LORD."
Nowhere does he say that the laws are only for Israel, just like your recipe is not just for your friend.
Nowhere does he say don't do this or that to a "fellow Israelite".
God calls them His laws. Period.
You must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. I am the LORD your God. Keep my decrees and laws, for the man who obeys them will live by them. I am the LORD.
They are addressed to Israel, just like your recipe is addressed for you friend. But while the recipe is an option for anyone to follow, God says that these are His laws.
A note from the police chief to a homeowner at 615 Oak Street saying that they cannot keep cars up on blocks in their front yard as per city ordinance does not mean the law only applies to that person simply because the note starts, "Dear Mr. Smith". The law is the law. The person in charge is only letting Mr. Smith know what the law is.
We have discussed how some OT laws are ceremonial, and some are civil laws. Some are for ancient Israel specifically, and some are universal morals and laws. Here's a whole chapter of things that God says which category they fall in; His laws, His decrees. Not Israel's or just for "fellow Israelites", but His, who is above and transcends Israel. Like the police chief, he's letting people know what those laws are.
Doug...
God calls them His laws. Period.
So, you don't shave your beard or cut the hair on the side of your head? When you see a "man laying with a man" or a man and woman in an adulterous affair, you kill them?
When you see someone working on Saturday, you kill them?
And you don't work on Saturday yourself, right?
No, of course you don't do any of these. Those COMMANDS DIRECTLY FROM GOD were specifically for Israel, agreed?
Your separation of civil laws, "decrees," and "laws" and ceremonial laws are just your rather whimsical separation, nothing from God. There's nothing in the Bible that separates these out, it's a modern human invention.
So perhaps we'd be right in killing you for blasphemy or creating a false idol???
Geoffrey....
Asking specific questions regarding the practice of slavery, the lending of money at interest, dietary practices, sexual mores, gender roles, and the like all miss the point. Not because these things aren't important; rather, because one can lose sight of the overarching narrative if one gets down too far in to the weeds about whether the Bible supports or doesn't support this or that
Exactly my point in my post from a few days ago: If we demote the bible to merely a rulebook to be woodenly adhered to, we lose the message of Grace and miss the point altogether, or at least run that risk.
Your separation of civil laws, "decrees," and "laws" and ceremonial laws are just your rather whimsical separation, nothing from God.
Well, as I've said previously (and I do seem to keep having to say that), it's often discernible from context, as it is in the case of Leviticus 18. Given how it's treated here, vs how it has civic penalties attached to some things elsewhere, the distinction isn't that difficult. Smarter guys than you or I have dealt with this issue over the millennia, and if you don't care what they say, you certainly won't care what I say.
If God "detests" something, whoever He may be addressing at the moment, I should probably detest it too. And that's all I have to say about that.
Are you staying away from wartime collateral killing, then? How about people re-marrying their ex-wives?
Both of these God finds specifically detestable, so I guess you think you should detest them, too.
And shrimp, too, don't forget.
Oh wait: That's something that God USED to find detestable but now is cool with...
As noted in my prior post: The Sabbath for humanity, not humanity for the Sabbath.
These rules were for Israel's good, for THEIR sake. Walking in God's ways is for OUR sake. The Bible is not a rulebook, but a book of Grace, Love, Mercy. Confusing it and treating it as the former rather than the latter skews your image of God.
In fact, one MIGHT almost say it is making a graven image out of the Bible, and we know what God thinks of graven images (hint: They're "detestable...")
Just sayin'...
Dan,
My point was that you seem to want a blanket position of slavery as immoral to be as comprehensive as possible. Yet, you have absolutely no issue with your lame "some forms" argument with regards to homosexual behavior. Absolutely no position on slavery itself ever taken anywhere in Scripture, vs a clear and unmistakable "Thou shalt not" regarding homosexual behavior. And then readers are supposed to believe that there's some serious study going on.
On top of that, you refuse to acknowledge how God's commands dealing with death for sin was fulfilled in the death of Christ, thereby doing away with imperfect sacrifices and capital punishments. I have no doubt that you continue to refer to Lev 20:13 over Lev 18:22 simply in order to throw out the behavior with the punishment attached to it, which is deceitful as hell.
Doug has made an excellent point regarding God's laws and decrees and what He considers detestable. Why would homosexual behavior be detestable only for one people if He is merely saying that homosexual behavior is detestable? It takes personal bias and preference to inject such a thing into the text.
Serious study? Seriously flawed.
And my point, Marshall, would be that if you can't come out and say that the owning of another person is wrong and an affront to humanity, then you're not really in a position to speak to others about morality.
I say again, Dan, that if you can play games with a clearly revealed prohibition by pretending "some forms" are excluded, then why can you be so obstinate over something upon which there is NO (nada, zip, zilch, nothing whatsoever) mention at all? Clearly, "owning" a person might not be such a bad thing for every person owned. I won't try to speculate details, but I won't say that it is a devastation to the dignity of every owned person. That is pretty arrogant for one to decide how another regards his own dignity. It is especially arrogant of a person who allows for women to decide whether or not ending the life of their own child is murder or not.
I don't know how much more clear I could have been. Clearly, the form of slavery that the word itself now likely conjures in most every person is one of complete oppression and suffering for the slave. Why would I support that? But just as clearly is the fact that not every master who ever lived was a cruel taskmaster from whom his slaves desired freedom.
So, just because Dan Trabue has proclaimed that slavery is an immoral affront to the dignity of the slave, doesn't mean that it is so. What it does mean is that Dan is playing God, deciding what is and what isn't sinful regardless of whether or not God has already taken a position.
Thus, I speak of what is or isn't moral by what God tells us is or isn't in Scripture. Hardly idolatry since it is where we learn how He wants us to live. You ignore specifics in favor of ambiguous "grace" and distort Scripture to match your worldview. But somehow, my following what Scripture ACTUALLY SAYS is idolatry. When does the "serious" get demonstrated?
Marshall...
I say again, Dan, that if you can play games with a clearly revealed prohibition by pretending "some forms" are excluded
And I say again, I'm not playing games. My understanding of the Scriptures ARE my understanding and I reached them by serious, prayerful Bible study and meditation upon God's Ways. No games necessary for that.
Marshall...
then why can you be so obstinate over something upon which there is NO (nada, zip, zilch, nothing whatsoever) mention at all?
I'm obstinately opposed to behaviors that are self-evidently wrong, Marshall. The Bible does not contain all Truths. We can reach conclusions about some things that are NOT mentioned in the Bible. We are rationing adults created in the image of God with God's Word/Law written upon our hearts and minds.
You don't think that we can only oppose those behaviors condemned somewhere in the Bible, do you, Marshall?
We can, and should, continue to oppose those that ARE opposed in Scripture, which you don't do. If you wish to say that somehow Scriptural study leads you to oppose slavery in all its forms, I can only say that you are unable to back it up. You have less to go on to support your position there than you do for your position on "some forms" of homosexual behavior, and THAT is an incredibly thin position as it is (read: no support at all).
Doug makes a good point about "self-evident". It's one I've never before considered. Obviously, you are more concerned about "self-evident" when the "self" is Dan Trabue. Me? Not so much. Indeed, it is what is evident to you that makes your claims of having engaged in "serious, prayerful study" seem so laughable. There's no accounting for the ability of others.
Does the Bible contain every truth? I don't see where it falls short. But it's good to know that where God fails to inform us on the weightier issues of life, Dan Trabue is right there to cover for His shortcomings.
http://www.godwords.org/posts.php?id=31
Craig, from your cited website...
but Israelite slavery primarily benefited the poor...
The loan shark/quick cash type places that charge poor folk 25-400% interest ALSO claim to be voluntary (and, in fact, are, in their own insidious way). That does not make them noble or good or helpful or moral.
Again from the website...
You see, slavery was almost always voluntary...
As I keep pointing out and as it seems many with the "pro-slavery" view keep ignoring, this "voluntary" slavery is ONLY ONE of the sorts of slavery found in the Bible. There was also the capturing of slaves from other kingdoms. These slaves were NOT voluntary IN THE LEAST, were very comparable to "modern" slavery and are THAT sort of slavery is clearly an affront to human dignity and wrong.
Can we agree that forced, life-long slavery IS a moral wrong and that it doesn't matter how well the OWNERS of these human work-slaves treat their chattel?
That has been my point here and it seems that you all are wary to call the FORCED SLAVERY of people a moral wrong, which I find quite astounding. It would seem to be a case of the interpretation some folk use with the Bible causing a bit of moral blindness in their worldview, as if you couldn't say, "Well, I CAN'T call the forced labor and ownership of PEOPLE a moral wrong, because the Bible doesn't condemn it when it happens..." You DON'T have to find a behavior condemned in the Bible to condemn it yourselves, you know?
In "assumption 4," your website suggests that it was NOT okay to harm a slave, and indeed, there were some rules that required some decent treatment of slaves. That does not mean that no harm was done.
Consider that a woman captured in battle could be taken home (after having slaughtered her family and people), her head shaved, fingernails pared (no scratching) and she could be "generously" given 30 entire days to grieve her family before the captor could MAKE her his wife. THAT, I would suggest, is harmful behavior.
Can we agree that capturing a virgin girl/woman, taking her home and making her your wife (after allowing 30 days to grieve) IS harmful behavior and morally wrong?
Yes, yes, we can agree that these rules DID put some consideration into place for the slave (for instance, if the "wife"/slave was truly unhappy, she could even be released after a while and the marriage ignored/voided - how do the anti-divorce types deal with that consistently, I wonder??), but that there were some rules in place does not mean that no harm was done. I would posit that forced slavery ITSELF is a harmful thing and morally wrong, and I'm astounded that there are people anywhere even attempting to defend such.
As to the silly crap that apologist makes for sex slavery ("it wasn't REALLY involuntary sex slavery - these virgin girls/women whose families had just been slaughtered were doubtless thrilled to be bedded down by their captors!" What BS. Does anyone REALLY think these "marriages" were entered into voluntarily??), well, silly crap stinks just as bad as serious crap.
As to assumption 6, that says the OT condemns involuntarily slavery, that is only HALF the story. YES, in places, the OT condemns involuntary slavery. AND in OTHER places, it COMMANDS it.
This eisegetical Bible "study" is just trying to sweep under the carpet some obvious problems for the literalists out there. It's wishful thinking and not very serious study, seems to me.
But thanks for sharing it, nonetheless.
I guess where I part ways with you all in trying to seriously study the Bible and seek God's ways is that you all believe that God will sometimes command people to do what otherwise would be evil.
You believe God will (might or has) command(ed) the capture of human beings to take into forced slavery. I think that is a poor conclusion to reach.
You believe that God will (might or has) command(ed) people to capture virgin girls/women to take forcibly as their "wives." I think that is a poor conclusion to reach.
And so on. You all believe that God might sometimes command people to do wrong. I believe that is contrary to the Truth, "God will not tempt anyone."
Marshall and Doug, as to your questions about "self-evidency," do you disagree, then, with those of us who believe that some Truths are Self-Evident?
The previous two comments prove the maxim one of my New Testament professors told us in seminary: Reading the Bible to create, "What the Bible says about X" is, at best problematic, and usually ends up in confusion.
Because the Bible says lots of things on lots of topics. Sometimes they are contradictory. Sometimes, they are even offensive to our contemporary moral and ethical sensibilities. Which does not mean the Bible should not be read, or cannot be a guide to ethical conduct; it just means we are reading the Bible the wrong way.
What a shock! Somebody read the Bible and, as Dan notes, discovers it endorses slavery. Does that mean we should or even possibly can reconsider the practice? For those who argue this way . . . I'm not even sure what to say. As Dan also notes, we might be better off trusting our current general consensus that the practice of owning other human beings is bad, rather than looking to the Bible and saying, "Gee, they don't seem to think it's so bad." There are lots of specific instances of Scripture endorsing morally vicious things - the wholesale slaughter of cities; the ethnic cleansing of various land areas - which, one would hope, we might at best pass over or even denounce as contrary to our sense of what is and is not acceptable.
So, too, with slavery. Which is why this discussion is revealing not so much of what the Bible says, but of the ignorance and moral ineptitude of some folks whose names should be obvious.
Dan,
I would agree that at this point in time unacceptable to own another human being. However, this does not mitigate the fact that there are different types of arrangements that might be called slavery, and that not all of those are created equal. I see no problem in suggesting that God ordained one particular set of practices for one particular people at one particular time in history the term for which is translated slavery. That does not mean that any and all similar conditions which are referred to as slavery are similarly ordained or approved.
This, as with so many of these digressions, is honestly kind of silly. I realize that there is some kind of moral superiority that comes with being able to suggest that those who disagree with you support slavery, yet any moral superiority that comes from misrepresenting someones position seems a bit shallow.
Besides, these are all just suggestions anyway. There's really no need to take them so seriously.
It's worse than that, Craig. He asked originally whether or not we think slavery is wrong and an affront to the dignity of the slave. My response was that there is nothing in the Bible that presents us with a moral label on the institution itself: the Bible neither condemns nor endorses slavery (despite what Geoffrey is trying to say). THAT was the extent of my answer and it was THEN that Dan changed the terms to focus on the type of slavery that most commonly comes to mind. And this all began with the tract he offered in the post and the comment that followed that stated that the tract suggested something immoral about slavery, which it doesn't in any way, shape or form for the adult who can read without personal bias clouding the issue. Dan WANTS the tract to suggest immorality, so to him it does, regardless of the intent of the tract itself.
Ultimately, I don't know why I bother. It's just Dan's opinion about how he interprets a suggestion made in another time and place to another culture. Given that it's really not worth much effort.
Marshall...
THAT was the extent of my answer and it was THEN that Dan changed the terms to focus on the type of slavery that most commonly comes to mind.
To clarify, what I ACTUALLY did was point out that there are at least TWO types of slavery spoken of in the Bible (the poor person "selling themselves" when desperate to keep from starvation and the conquering another nation and taking slaves forcibly from them, which IS more like what we all think of as slavery and which you all seem to keep ignoring). That's not "changing the terms," that's pointing out what is, as a point of fact, in the Bible.
Tell me Marshall, do you think that God will/does sometimes command us to do what would usually be evil?
And can we agree that, at least normally (ie, unless God "tells you" to become a slaver), the OWNING OF A PERSON AS A SLAVE is truly evil? (I can't believe I'm having to ask that question...)
Also, can we agree that, at least normally (ie, unless God tells you to bed down the virgin daughters of your enemy), that it is WRONG to force a virgin girl to marry you? (again, I can't believe I have to actually ask that question...)
And can we agree that, at least normally (ie, unless God "tells you" to become a slaver), the OWNING OF A PERSON AS A SLAVE is truly evil? (I can't believe I'm having to ask that question...)
Also, can we agree that, at least normally (ie, unless God tells you to bed down the virgin daughters of your enemy), that it is WRONG to force a virgin girl to marry you? (again, I can't believe I have to actually ask that question...)
Dan,
Where you seem to have missed the boat is in the following assumptions (for lack of a better term).
First, no one is suggesting that either of these two things are in any way shape or form normative for us today.
Second, these are just suggestions that one can have an opinion on and choose whether to follow said suggestion or not.
Maybe it would be more productive to deal with what is actually being said.
I think it is always productive to stick with what is being actually said, Craig.
Given that, what I ACTUALLY asked remains unanswered. Any chance of a direct response?
[Oh, and a note: If you look at what I ACTUALLY said, I did not say that OWNING PEOPLE (either as a work slave or as a forced wife) is normative, so, by all means, let's stick to what is being said.]
Actually, I did answer your question. Perhaps you missed it.
Oh, by the way, I did not suggest that you suggested that those things were normative.
You appear to be suggesting that those who have a different opinion on the meaning of these suggestions were suggesting that these conditions were normative.
Nowhere did I suggest that you felt these to be normative.
At this point as I do not own slaves or rape captive women and marry them, nor do I advocate that anyone else do these things, it seems like this has truly become a pointless digression. I have answered your question, and really don't see anything else to add.
Craig, your earlier answer...
However, this does not mitigate the fact that there are different types of arrangements that might be called slavery, and that not all of those are created equal...
I specifically pointed out that there were at least two types of slavery in the bible. One that was nominally not forced (although when the alternative is starvation and/or destitution/prostitution, that is very nominally not forced) and the second type that was forced. I specifically asked about the second type. To that end, you appear to be saying...
I see no problem in suggesting that God ordained one particular set of practices for one particular people at one particular time in history the term for which is translated slavery.
So, moral behaviors change and are different from one time/culture to another? I don't have too much problem with that concept, but I think your more conservative brethren might condemn such a suggestion (Morals change??? No! God NEVER changes God's moral expectations!)
And when you say, "which is translated 'slavery...'" it SOUNDS as if you are questioning whether the involuntary enslavement and ownership of people as found in the Bible ought not be called slavery. Care to clarify?
IS the OWNING of people as slave labor - folk held against their will and being made to work (or made to be "wives") - is that what is being spoken of in places in the Bible? You all appear to not want to deal with that directly. Care to clarify?
Craig...
Actually, I did answer your question. Perhaps you missed it.
Actually, I don't think I missed it. I don't think it was answered, not directly.
My question:
can we agree that, at least normally (ie, unless God "tells you" to become a slaver), the OWNING OF A PERSON AS A SLAVE is truly evil?
Your answer:
I would agree that at this point in time unacceptable to own another human being.
PERHAPS that is an answer, but it isn't a direct answer. Do you agree that the owning of people is evil, or do you merely think it "unacceptable..."?
I think the use of curse words around children is unacceptable, but would not rise to the level of evil the way OWNING PEOPLE against their will does.
So, care to clarify?
If it makes you feel better to substitute the term evil, I guess I have no quarrel with your opinion. My opinion was that I chose a different word.
The problem with this whole discussion is that no one is or has suggested that it is in any way acceptable to own people at this point in history. Since no one is suggesting that this is appropriate, why the continued trip down the rabbit hole?
Sorry, I just have to jump back in here to correct a misconception.
So, moral behaviors change and are different from one time/culture to another? I don't have too much problem with that concept, but I think your more conservative brethren might condemn such a suggestion (Morals change??? No! God NEVER changes God's moral expectations!)
What is moral in God's eyes does not, I believe, change. But I know at least I have pointed this out before, that what God permits sometimes does.
Jesus Himself acknowledged this in the matter of divorce. From Matthew 19:
3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”
4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”
7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”
8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
The Pharisees noted what Moses had passed down to the people, but mistakenly called it a "command", and though this was God's moral law. Jesus corrects them, saying that it was permitted because they couldn't handle it back then, but that's not the true moral law as it was "from the beginning".
You keep saying you were a conservative before, but I keep wondering what kind of conservative. Certainly not a kind that I'm familiar with. We understand that God doesn't change, but in dealing with humans he has, at least, permitted in the past something He has said he specifically, by name, "hates". Same goes for, as another example, polygamy. But on this blog's comments I have laid out the case for God permitting it in the past, but every time He says something specific about it, He reaffirms the one-man-one-woman marriage. (Even here, in verse 4 & 5.)
If being "conservative" means understanding this clear message from Jesus, that's what I am.
So where did God stop permitting polygamy?
Where did God stop permitting slavery?
Where did God stop permitting forced marriages of the virgin girls shortly after massacring their families?
The point there would be that God did not stop permitting that. So IF you think that God "allowed" the owning of people to do your forced labor or forced marriages or forced polygamy or willing polygamy, then we have NO word from God saying that this behavior is still not "permitted."
IF you think that God sometimes commands us to do what would otherwise be evil.
Do you?
Craig...
If it makes you feel better to substitute the term evil, I guess I have no quarrel with your opinion. My opinion was that I chose a different word.
Does that mean you find the forced enslavement of people - the OWNERSHIP of another human being evil?
Just answer straightforwardly, man. Let your yes be yes and your no be no. IF you don't think owning people is evil, then stand up and say so. IF you agree with me, then stand up and say so. IF you think "it depends," then stand up and say so and state the stipulations on which it depends.
Straightforward answers are generally the best ones when questions have been raised as to your position.
When asked "Do you think the owning of people forcibly enslaved is evil?" saying, "I have no quarrel with your opinion..." is NOT a straightforward answer. Why not simply say "YES," if you have no quarrel with my opinion and, in fact, AGREE with my opinion? It's like your hedging your bets for some reason...
Let your yes be yes and your no be no, especially on easy questions like this.
I have no problem saying that owning another person is not "evil". Worse than owning a person is assuming ownership, which is the case with the so-called "pro-choice" people, and then putting that person to death for the most selfish of reasons. I don't see anyone who supports "pro-choice" legislation as having any room to speak about the "evils" of owning another person. The word "hypocrisy" leaps out like a freakin' jack-in-the-box.
As to raping virgins, this Biblical situation has been explained exhaustively and apparently, Dan "doesn't buy it". Dan needs to find horror in Scripture to help make his case for things about which the Bible is much clearer that Dan wishes were not so.
"Permit", though the word is used by Jesus, is likely less accurate than "tolerate" (in the word's real sense). God tolerated behaviors that displeased Him, such as divorce and polygamy. Other behaviors He regulated to mitigate the harm that was being done before He chose to do so. Regardless of any of this, there is no mention of slavery in terms that suggest endorsement, condemnation or even toleration.
Dan,
My concern with giving you the type of answer you want is that you will misuse my answer. So, I've quite clearly said that at this point in history it is unacceptable for one person to own another. You feel that evil is a better term, I don't entirely that evil is the proper term, but if it makes you all warm and fuzzy for me to use it I can.
the bigger problem is that at best there is no biblical support for your position. Further, if there were, it would be (again at best) a suggestion. Further that suggestion would only be as valid as the opinion of whoever interpreted it.
So, yes, I find the idea of forced ownership of another at this point in history repugnant. This does not however put me in a position to make value judgments regarding God's institution (or tolerance or regulation) of a system (or two) as it may or may not have existed in ancient Israel.
The point there would be that God did not stop permitting that. So IF you think that God "allowed" the owning of people to do your forced labor or forced marriages or forced polygamy or willing polygamy, then we have NO word from God saying that this behavior is still not "permitted."
I was only speaking to your incorrect observation that conservatives supposedly think that God never changes His moral expectations. He does have his moral standards, as Jesus said, "from the beginning". And, in the case of polygamy, He never commands anyone to do it. Indeed, every time He mentions marriage standards for anyone (e.g. the King, church elders), He always says they should have only 1 wife.
So yes, we do have a way of knowing that it is no longer permitted. The coming of Jesus changed all that. The Sermon on the Mount is full of "you have heard it said" followed by "but I say" couplets where Jesus sets right a number of examples of these sorts of things.
For the Israelites, people who did not know as much about God as we do now, He gave them some slack. We no longer have that. Jesus said, "If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin. Now, however, they have no excuse for their sin."
Jesus coming changed everything.
Craig...
My concern with giving you the type of answer you want is that you will misuse my answer. So, I've quite clearly said that at this point in history it is unacceptable for one person to own another. You feel that evil is a better term, I don't entirely that evil is the proper term, but if it makes you all warm and fuzzy for me to use it I can.
Craig, my question was not a game, it was a question. THIS conversation is not a game, it's a conversation.
I asked a question. Why not just answer yes or no (or "depends") to the question I actually asked rather than answering another question.
It appears, then, that YOUR actual answer to MY actual question goes like this...
DAN: Do you believe that the owning of people/forced slavery of people is an obvious evil?
CRAIG: No, I don't think it's as simple as that.
THAT is a direct answer. I'm not "using" your answer for anything, I'm ASKING QUESTIONS TO ASCERTAIN YOUR POSITION.
That is why I ask questions.
Now, asking questions DOES have the side benefit of clarifying things and I think it QUITE clarifying that at least four conservatives here in my circles can't/won't call THE OWNING OF PEOPLE AS SLAVES, AGAINST THEIR WILL, an obvious evil.
That blows my mind.
And I hope it also helps you to understand - seriously, think about it - why I have a bit of a hard time taking ethical/moral advice from people coming from such a position.
Craig, Doug, I'd still like to hear you weigh in on the question: do you believe that there are some truths that are self-evident, including the notion that ALL humans are created equal and with certain inalienable rights, including life and LIBERTY?
And Craig, it's NOT a trick question to be "used." It's a QUESTION seeking an answer. Beyond that, it's a reasonable question to people who seem reluctant to call slavery "evil."
Craig...
the bigger problem is that at best there is no biblical support for your position.
You don't think there is biblical support to call the OWNING OF PEOPLE AGAINST THEIR WILL "evil..."? And if that were true, so what? Don't you agree that not all Truths MUST come from the Bible?
Do you disagree that there are some truths that are self-evident?
The Bible never condemns beating your infant with a rod for "lying," does that mean you can't agree with me that beating infants with a rod for "lying" is evil?
You all know we are not constrained in our knowledge of ethical behavior by ONLY what is in the Bible, right? I thought we had already agreed on all this...
As to a lack of biblical support against slavery, I'd argue that, while there is no direct condemnation of slavery in a society and a time that it was accepted, there are plenty of eternal TRUTHS in the Bible that would dictate against slavery. And it is light years MUCH EASIER to make a biblical case against slavery than it is against marriage equity.
The problem, it seems to me, is that you all tie yourselves to a woodenly literal biblical reading ON SOME POINTS, but rather whimsically/haphazardly abandon literal biblical readings on other points and that there is no consistency to it - it strikes ME as very culture-driven.
But that's just one man's opinion.
The problem, it seems to me, is that you all tie yourselves to a woodenly literal biblical reading ON SOME POINTS, but rather whimsically/haphazardly abandon literal biblical readings on other points and that there is no consistency to it - it strikes ME as very culture-driven.
Dan, after I've laid out two very detailed cases (in two different comment threads, not here) regarding why I see the Bible advocating marriage as between one man and one woman, and showing that polygamy, while permitted/tolerated by God, was never His plan for mankind, I find it bordering on offensive that you would consider all that "whimsical" or "haphazard".
You want straight answers, but they are promptly dismissed and forgotten. This leads to you asking the same question over and over, and finally accepting an answer that is copied and pasted from previous answers.
We also wind up with these kinds of accusations, along with huge misunderstandings of what conservatives/literalists believe about God's unchanging moral laws vs what He permitted/tolerated in OT times.
You say you want to understand, but your actions don't seem to line up with that.
Why not just answer yes or no (or "depends") to the question I actually asked rather than answering another question...?
I had asked (what I thought was an easy question)...
"Do you believe that the owning of people/forced slavery of people is an obvious evil?"
Craig responded...
Since you ask this question bereft of context, I cannot answer more clearly than I have already answered.
Then answer this, my friend: Why in the world not?
WHAT context is out there that prevents you from answering it?
How about this:
"As a rule, yes, the type of forced slavery/owning of a person against their will to be slave labor is always, always, always wrong and an obvious evil. Now, there ARE some - very few - exceptions that I can think of..."
And list them.
What in the world would prevent you from answering that question directly?
My answer I just offered (with the caveat of some exceptions) IS a direct answer to that question.
I can not imagine what possible circumstances would keep you from answering it directly, even if there are caveats. What possible contextual differences could there be?
"If a human being were being OWNED by another human being and forced to work for that master against their will, BUT it was for their own good, then it might be a good thing..."????
I just can't fathom any differences that ANY context of forcible owning of A PERSON against their will that would prevent someone from answering that question. Care to clue me in?
Craig...
I'm not sure I'd go with self evident. If your point is that there are objective truths, I'd be on board. Obviously, there are a number of cultures (many Moslem that are not aware of this self evident truth that owning others is evil), so I'm not sure if these qualify as self evident.
So, you reject the Declaration of Independence then, because it is based upon a false premise (the SELF-EVIDENT truth that all humans are created equal and with the freedom of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness)?
Craig and others, even if you disagree with me, can you not fathom how ABSOLUTELY WEIRD it is to hear people coming out against the notion that some Truths are self-evident and that forced slavery is not necessarily an absolute evil??? I mean... wow. I just can't imagine where this is coming from. It's not any sort of conservatism that I was raised with.
Craig...
Where I have a problem is, you have stated elsewhere that while such truths do exist, the best we can do if to form fallible opinions about such truths. So, I'm not sure what your point is. You appear to have changed your position to encompass the point that we have made all along that there are objective truths and the we can know them.
I have stated consistently, Craig, that I believe some truths are self-evident.
I have stated consistently that our ARGUMENTS for Objective Truth are, by definition SUBJECTIVE.
I have not changed my position. Our ARGUMENTS for objective truth ARE STILL subjective. They just are. Feel free to offer a single OBJECTIVE ARGUMENT for God or the belief that slavery is sometimes Good, or whatever Truth you want to argue. THE ARGUMENT will be subjective.
But that does not mean that some objective truths are not what WE HUMANS consider "self-evident." Or at least we modern Americans and believers in Democracy.
I had said...
"And it is light years MUCH EASIER to make a biblical case against slavery than it is against marriage equity."
To which Craig responded...
Yet, you've done neither.
Because it's not the point of this post. The whole slavery thing was just an aside that I/we have stuck on because it's just so astounding to find people who want to be taken seriously on matters of morality and ethics who can't affirm that slavery (the OWNING of another human AGAINST THEIR WILL) is obviously wrong (and now that there is no such thing as self-evident truths!).
Craig, if someone were to come here and try to make the case in favor of racial discrimination or ethnic cleansing and challenged me to defend AGAINST those behaviors from the Bible, I probably wouldn't do that, either. These are premises that are on the face of them so ridiculous and repugnant that it would be giving the argument more credibility than it deserves to go too far down that road (which I've probably already done! silly me).
Craig...
With only a set of guidelines, you have no basis for "self evident" truth.
I don't think you're grasping the meaning of "self-evident," friend.
I'm having a hard time with being criticized about morality and ethics because of questions about slavery from a guy who supports legislation providing a woman the legal permission to kill her own kid. What hubris!
Furthermore, with a clear "thou shalt not" to comprehensively cover a particular sexual behavior, it is ludicrous to suggest that a better argument against slavery can be formed from Scripture than one in support of some fictitious "marriage equity".
Some see what some want to see.
"Because it's not the point of this post."
Anywhere, ever.
And, in case you missed the point, Craig: I wouldn't make a biblical case against other human atrocities, either, as it's not necessary. Wrong is wrong.
Dan,
I could take your response more seriously if you actually acknowledged that I addressed everything you brought up in your last comment.
I specifically addressed my concerns with the term self evident, yet you don't deal with those specifics.
I specifically addressed my concern with your lack of context, yet you ignore that.
I even specifically answered your question, yet you somehow miss that.
You continue to imply that anyone who doesn't toe your rhetorical line somehow supports slavery, when this is manifestly untrue.
I am quite aware of the meaning of self evident, and I explained why I have a problem with it.
Like your original question, I've already answered it.
It should be self evident, that I'm not going to repeat myself.
"Wrong is wrong."
Since you've clearly defended the hunch that the Bible is not a "rule book" and that at best it contains guidelines, I can see where it might be problematic to come up with a blanket definition of wrong.
I'll ask this again. If these things are so "self evident" why do so many cultures ignore these "self evident" truths?
I'll gladly answer. As soon as you directly answer the questions I have actually asked...
Do you reject the Declaration of Independence then, because it is based upon a false premise (the SELF-EVIDENT truth that all humans are created equal and with the freedom of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness)?
and...
Do you believe that the owning of people/forced slavery of people is an obvious evil?
Or, failing that again, then how about answering the follow up question:
WHAT context is out there that prevents you from answering it?
How about this:
"As a rule, yes, the type of forced slavery/owning of a person against their will to be slave labor is always, always, always wrong and an obvious evil. Now, there ARE some - very few - exceptions that I can think of..."
And list them.
What in the world would prevent you from answering that question directly?
"What in the world would prevent you from answering that question directly?"
Not a thing. In fact I've already addressed or answered everything in your comment except this bit of nonsense. (although my explanation of my problems with the term "self evident" would have covered it for most people)
"Do you reject the Declaration of Independence then, because it is based upon a false premise (the SELF-EVIDENT truth that all humans are created equal and with the freedom of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness)?"
No. The problems with this as an example are two fold. First, the line is "We hold these truths to be self evident...", this is clearly not a statement of fact, but a statement of opinion. Second, the declaration is a fine document, yet it is a fallible document written by fallible men, therefore I (nor most others) would place it on the same level as the Bible in terms of it's ability to contain truth. Third, while these things were "self evident" to the writers, they obviously were not to any other society in existence at the time. Which leads back to the question that you've blown off twice.
So, now it's your turn.
Well done, Craig. It should be noted that while I hold the DoI in great esteem, it does not trump the fact that there is absolutely no indication in Scripture of the morality of slavery in general.
There is also the notion, held by many, that no one is ever truly enslaved (while others maintain we are never truly free), and this in only a secular sense.
It really doesn't matter what MY opinion on slavery is while that definite absence of moral explanation exists in the Bible. And of course, the point remains that the passage Dan presented does NOT suggest anything immoral about slavery in general.
Or at least we modern Americans and believers in Democracy.
I thought we were an autonomous collective.
You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship. A self-perpetuating autocracy...
Oh there you go, bringing class into it again.
That's what it's all about. you know...
Please, please good people. I am in haste.
Post a Comment