Morality or Obedience?

[element771]

Many of them were. How else to explain the legal opinions over whether or not slaves who converted to Christianity should remain slaves?

There wasn't. British involvement in the slave trade occurred abroad. Counter your dishonesty. It's extremely easy to see what you are trying to do - you're trying to pretend that slavery is unBiblical and unChristian, and that Christianity was the reason for abolishment of slavery.

But the truth is that slavery, including US slavery, is consistent with Biblical principles; and that while the abolitionists were Christians, the slaver-traders, slave-transporters and slave-buyers were also Christians.

You ask who advocated for abolishing the slave trade. You haven't asked, nor will you ask, who advocated for retaining the slave trade, because you want to present a false picture that Christian equated to abolitionist and ignore the fact that the anti-abolitionists were Christians too.

This is the same approach you took when trying to blame atheism for Hitler's death toll - revising history to claim the good for Christianity, while palming off the evil. If you really want to counter disingenuousness you'd best start with yourself - beginning by admitting that Biblical law permits slavery.

Christians are human and I am sure that many of them advocated for keeping slavery. That doesn't change that the people pushing for abolition were also Christian. And if you think the Bible advocates for slavery, you must have a different Bible than I have.

[carpedm9587]

Christians are human and I am sure that many of them advocated for keeping slavery. That doesn't change that the people pushing for abolition were also Christian. And if you think the Bible advocates for slavery, you must have a different Bible than I have.

I don't think it advocates. It does contain passages that appear to condone slavery.

But that is as far as I am going to go on biblical discussions. I view the bible as a book written by men (AFAIK), documenting their religious beliefs. As with all books, it is highly subject to interpretation, and has been used to defend or decry a wide range of things over the centuries. I do not turn to it for "truth" other than what historical information we can glean about the beliefs of its writers and their community, and those nuggets that I find inspirational.

[element771]

I don't think it advocates. It does contain passages that appear to condone slavery.

I think part of the problem is that modern slavery is different than the servitude which is mentioned in the Bible.

[Roy]

Christians are human and I am sure that many of them advocated for keeping slavery. That doesn't change that the people pushing for abolition were also Christian.

Christians are human and many of them advocated for abolishing slavery. That doesn't change that the people pushing against abolition were also Christian.

And if you think the Bible advocates for slavery, you must have a different Bible than I have.

"Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever"

[element771]

Christians are human and many of them advocated for abolishing slavery. That doesn't change that the people pushing against abolition were also Christian.

So there are bad Christians...not sure that anyone is disputing this. It is kind of integral to Christian theology.

[carpedm9587]

I think part of the problem is that modern slavery is different than the servitude which is mentioned in the Bible.

I probably should not have posted on this topic...

Look, I think there are many types of slavery that were practiced in the ancient near east, and many of them are reflected in the Christian bible. I do not recall the bible identifying which kinds were OK and which were not. I know the modern preference is to see the texts as referring more to indentured servitude or so-called "voluntary" slavery. Only a couple of centuries ago, those same passages were used to justify slavery in America, and before that slavery in the colonies of Christian countries.

As I said, the book is so subject to interpretation, a discussion about "what it means" I usually find to be pointless. Each person will have their interpretation, justify it in light of something, and then assure us that theirs is correct and everyone else's is incorrect. It's a rathole I just don't find productive. When I do read the bible, or reference it, I tend to constrain myself to "what it means to me," and leave it at that. I don't try to pretend I know what the original authors were thinking when they wrote it.

The discussion about moral frameworks we were engaged in seems to me to be more potentially productive.

[Roy]

I think part of the problem is that modern slavery is different than the servitude which is mentioned in the Bible.

Modern slavery is different from the servitude mentioned in the Bible - but not from the slavery mentioned in the bible.

That's the third and last time you've avoided acknowledging the Biblical law permitting slavery.

[MaxVel]

I probably should not have posted on this topic...

Look, I think there are many types of slavery that were practiced in the ancient near east, and many of them are reflected in the Christian bible. I do not recall the bible identifying which kinds were OK and which were not. I know the modern preference is to see the texts as referring more to indentured servitude or so-called "voluntary" slavery. Only a couple of centuries ago, those same passages were used to justify slavery in America, and before that slavery in the colonies of Christian countries.

As I said, the book is so subject to interpretation, a discussion about "what it means" I usually find to be pointless. Each person will have their interpretation, justify it in light of something, and then assure us that theirs is correct and everyone else's is incorrect. It's a rathole I just don't find productive. When I do read the bible, or reference it, I tend to constrain myself to "what it means to me," and leave it at that. I don't try to pretend I know what the original authors were thinking when they wrote it.

The discussion about moral frameworks we were engaged in seems to me to be more potentially productive.

I think you're going too far here. The logical end-point of this (post-modern ?) approach is that all meaning is subjective to the reader, and thus any text can mean anything to the reader. Of course there is a degree of ambiguity in all communication, and being so far removed in time and culture from the OT increases that.

But surely the original authors of the Bible meant something in particular by what they wrote, and it is possible to get close to that meaning. As we develop better understanding of the background, language, context and culture, I think we can and do move closer and closer to the original author's meaning (the hermeneutical spiral).

So there is no need to throw our hands up and despair of ever arriving at the true meaning of the text, the question really should be something like 'How much weight and support can we see for this interpretation of the text being what the authors meant?'.

Such discussions might not be everyone's cup of tea, which is fair enough.

[Tassman]

So what? If men just made it up, no big deal, follow it or not. If it is a command of God then it is a universal moral truth, with real ultimate consequences for not following it.

No moral codes are “just made up” on a whim; they are grounded in our natural instincts for survival. They are naturally built into us, because they are beneficial to the breeding and survival of our species as social animals. Mutual reciprocity, which is embodied in the Golden Rule, is crucial. This is the origin of morality, not God.

[Tassman]

Or we just intuitively understand that lying, stealing, etc....

It's evolved, instinctive behaviour to ensure the survival of the family and community and cooperation so that the human species survives. This explains why the Golden Rule has been common to all human communities.

[Charles]

So what? If men just made it up, no big deal, follow it or not. If it is a command of God then it is a universal moral truth, with real ultimate consequences for not following it.

So much for the certainty... You don't know if it is made up or god's command. And even if it is god's command you are yet to show how it follows that it is a universal moral truth.

[JimL]

There you go with subjective opinions again.

The ends of reason and logic are not subjective. If behaviors have a bad effect on the social order, and as Tass points out on the survival of human beings, then it is by reason and logic that we eventually come to the conclusion that certain human behaviors are immoral, they don't serve our interests well.. Tass says its instinct, which could be how we arrived at moral knowledge, I guess that's what animals do, but I don't think that with the evolution of the human brain, that we can continue to attribute our moral codes to instinct.
Your idea though, in my opinion, is just silly, there is no reason or logic at the basis of your coclusion, there is no reason that an act is considered immoral, other than that it is a brute fact, or because a god has decreed it so.

[carpedm9587]

I think you're going too far here. The logical end-point of this (post-modern ?) approach is that all meaning is subjective to the reader, and thus any text can mean anything to the reader. Of course there is a degree of ambiguity in all communication, and being so far removed in time and culture from the OT increases that.

Not "all" meaning. There are segments of the bible that can be historically verified. Then there is a mixture of mythology, poetry, theology, etc. The parts of the bible that can be historically verified, I have no problem accepting their historicity. The rest, IMO, tells us something about the beliefs of the writers/community at the time of writing. They sometimes make verifiable historical references, but a significant portion is not verifyable.

But surely the original authors of the Bible meant something in particular by what they wrote, and it is possible to get close to that meaning. As we develop better understanding of the background, language, context and culture, I think we can and do move closer and closer to the original author's meaning (the hermeneutical spiral).

We are talking about collection of books for which we have no original copies, that were written in another culture/time/language, and have been analyzed to death over the years. I remember the first time it became clear to me that even in the domain of "scripture scholars," there were a) relatively few true historians engaged, and b) there was a wide variation between "right" and "left" interpretations, each claiming to have "the truth" (or at least "the most likely truth"). It's discussion without end, with many opinions and claims, and relatively little that can, IMO, be definitively claimed.

So there is no need to throw our hands up and despair of ever arriving at the true meaning of the text, the question really should be something like 'How much weight and support can we see for this interpretation of the text being what the authors meant?'.

I am certainly neither "throwing up my hands" nor "despairing." I recognize that the bible means a lot more to Christians than it does not me, and they (you?) have a vested interest in attempting to arrive at these "truths." I just think it's folly, because there is no resolution to the question. I think it is far better to simply discuss what personal insights are gained in the reading. That can happen with any book, and it not an attempt to dissect what a mostly unknown (and mostly unknowable) author meant when writing X under the conditions described above. To me, it's somewhat akin to a discussion about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Such discussions might not be everyone's cup of tea, which is fair enough.

Definitely not mine. If others wish to engage in it, go for it. However, if someone attempts to make a claim avbout the bible that rests on the assumption that they know what was intended or "what happened," most of the time I will take it with a fairly large grain of salt.

[carpedm9587]

No moral codes are “just made up” on a whim; they are grounded in our natural instincts for survival. They are naturally built into us, because they are beneficial to the breeding and survival of our species as social animals. Mutual reciprocity, which is embodied in the Golden Rule, is crucial. This is the origin of morality, not God.

Except that the reciprocity rule describes a basic social contract; the basic dynamic by which society's tend to function. It doesn't actually tell us what is morally right action or morally wrong action. Using it and it alone, a masochist could find justification for torture. A suicidal person could find justification for homicide. The list goes on.

[JimL]

I think you're going too far here. The logical end-point of this (post-modern ?) approach is that all meaning is subjective to the reader, and thus any text can mean anything to the reader. Of course there is a degree of ambiguity in all communication, and being so far removed in time and culture from the OT increases that.

But surely the original authors of the Bible meant something in particular by what they wrote, and it is possible to get close to that meaning. As we develop better understanding of the background, language, context and culture, I think we can and do move closer and closer to the original author's meaning (the hermeneutical spiral).

So there is no need to throw our hands up and despair of ever arriving at the true meaning of the text, the question really should be something like 'How much weight and support can we see for this interpretation of the text being what the authors meant?'.

Such discussions might not be everyone's cup of tea, which is fair enough.

Morals are either objective truths, relative to human beings and the conditions of the world in which they live, or they are simply meaningless brute facts, or decrees of god, having nothing to do with the good of human beings or human society.