Does The Bible Support Slavery?

[Nickyjo]

Like they say, Even hitler had his good moments.

Name three.

 

[soylentgreen]

Name three.

In 1935, the Nazi Party was the one to introduce Germany’s first-ever national environment protection law named Reichsnaturschutzgesetz. This law established areas that were under protection to preserve nature and wildlife by prohibiting deforestation and hunting.

The Nazi Party started a program by which they gave children certain allowance to help out the less blessed families and assist them financially. This institution was called Kindergeld and was very progressive for the time.

Hitler also helped in the startup of the automotive company Volkswagen. One of his visions for Germany was for every German to be able to afford a car. He arranged for the designer Ferdinand Porsche to sketch a plan for an automobile intended to be cheap and affordable.

Your turn. Name three things an imaginary god does.

 

[Nickyjo]

In 1935, the Nazi Party was the one to introduce Germany’s first-ever national environment protection law named Reichsnaturschutzgesetz. This law established areas that were under protection to preserve nature and wildlife by prohibiting deforestation and hunting.

The Nazi Party started a program by which they gave children certain allowance to help out the less blessed families and assist them financially. This institution was called Kindergeld and was very progressive for the time.

Hitler also helped in the startup of the automotive company Volkswagen. One of his visions for Germany was for every German to be able to afford a car. He arranged for the designer Ferdinand Porsche to sketch a plan for an automobile intended to be cheap and affordable.

Your turn. Name three things an imaginary god does.

Good points. I’ll give you the VW and the “National Parks,” but we’re Jews eligible for the Kindergeld? Did Adolf create the autobahn as well? That should be on his meager plus side.

As the sayings go, “Mussolini made the trains run on time,” and a “stopped clock is right twice a day.” There probably isn’t a dictatorship or tyranny in history that didn’t have positives here and there.

I am reminded of a scene in a Monty Python film (“Life of Brian”?) where the Palestinians and Jews in the Holy Land are grumbling about Roman domination and colonization. It went something like this, as one of them points out the Roman good side to the grumblers:

-“what about the roads?”
-“well they did give us roads, but they still rule us mercilessly”
-“But they protect us from the barbarians.”
-“well yes, but they send us cruel people like Pilate to rule us”

And on and on. No doubt the US settlers had it easier than those in other British colonies, the Irish for example. But tho I don’t think I would have signed up to kill Redcoats and be shot at by them over taxes, I recognize the perspective of those who fight for what they see as freedom in certain contexts, even if they have it relatively well.

 

[soylentgreen]

Good points. I’ll give you the VW and the “National Parks,” but we’re Jews eligible for the Kindergeld? Did Adolf create the autobahn as well? That should be on his meager plus side.

As the sayings go, “Mussolini made the trains run on time,” and a “stopped clock is right twice a day.” There probably isn’t a dictatorship or tyranny in history that didn’t have positives here and there.

I am reminded of a scene in a Monty Python film (“Life of Brian”?) where the Palestinians and Jews in the Holy Land are grumbling about Roman domination and colonization. It went something like this, as one of them points out the Roman good side to the grumblers:

-“what about the roads?”
-“well they did give us roads, but they still rule us mercilessly”
-“But they protect us from the barbarians.”
-“well yes, but they send us cruel people like Pilate to rule us”

And on and on. No doubt the US settlers had it easier than those in other British colonies, the Irish for example. But tho I don’t think I would have signed up to kill Redcoats and be shot at by them over taxes, I recognize the perspective of those who fight for what they see as freedom in certain contexts, even if they have it relatively well.

Unfortunately in americas case it was for a few wealthy white land owning men that the rest were fighting their freedom for.

 

[LittleNipper]

In 1935, the Nazi Party was the one to introduce Germany’s first-ever national environment protection law named Reichsnaturschutzgesetz. This law established areas that were under protection to preserve nature and wildlife by prohibiting deforestation and hunting.

The Nazi Party started a program by which they gave children certain allowance to help out the less blessed families and assist them financially. This institution was called Kindergeld and was very progressive for the time.

Hitler also helped in the startup of the automotive company Volkswagen. One of his visions for Germany was for every German to be able to afford a car. He arranged for the designer Ferdinand Porsche to sketch a plan for an automobile intended to be cheap and affordable.

Your turn. Name three things an imaginary god does.

 

[LittleNipper]

He Owns the Cattle on a Thousand Hills:

 

[LittleNipper]

God will take care of you:

 

[Galactic Spin]

Again I need to point out that the bible as far as I can see makes no mention of the morality of slavery.

And there you have it. I make no mention of the morality of marriage, because I don't think it is immoral and feel no need to point outwhether it is or is not,.



You literally just supported the fact that the Bible has vile morality, including condoning of slavery.

As for modern morality that would not even exist if it was not for the fact that machines are far better at being slaves than humans.

Nah, that's complete fantasy. As evidenced by countries outlawing slavery before the industrial revolution.

You are saying ridiculous things, now.

 

[soylentgreen]

The imagination is not always a nice place.

 

[soylentgreen]

And there you have it. I make no mention of the morality of marriage, because I don't think it is immoral and feel no need to point outwhether it is or is not,.



You literally just supported the fact that the Bible has vile morality, including condoning of slavery.


Nah, that's complete fantasy. As evidenced by countries outlawing slavery before the industrial revolution.

You are saying ridiculous things, now.

You may not but the bible certainly does take a moral stance for marriage.

I would accept the fact that the morality is questionable in the bible over a few things. But with slavery all I have ever found I can liken only to a maintenance manual. How to care for a slave so as to get better work out of them. The immorality of slavery comes only from me, nothing the bible says about that.

No, what evidence are you referring to? I have already given one link that points out the conditions of slaves in america was no better and even worse sometimes for the freed slaves. Because nothing apart from them getting freedom had changed. People by there hundreds were needed to farm enough food to feed everyone and those that farmed made little to no profit due to the fact that they had to pay for help. And then the tractor came along. And suddenly farming became a possible career for just one man to do. An even more laughable example would be when bomberfox tried to pretend tahiti was an example of how well slaves faired when liberation came. What a joke. Please do not make the same mistake.

 

[Galactic Spin]

You may not but the bible certainly does take a moral stance for marriage.

Irrelevant. I was using me and marriage to illustrate.

Yep, the bible makes no mention of the morality of slavery. It just gives instructions on how to do it.

Let's not play stupid.

 

[Questerr]

Prove it!

You have it backwards. There is no evidence the Jesus described in the Bible existed anywhere except the Bible. Should a book of mythology be taken as its word?

If yes, do you do that with every book of mythology?

 

[soylentgreen]

Irrelevant. I was using me and marriage to illustrate.

Yep, the bible makes no mention of the morality of slavery. It just gives instructions on how to do it.

Let's not play stupid.

Why would it not. Slavery at the time did exist. It would be like questioning why do we have car maintenance manuals in our time.

Why would you use you? Your morality is not the question here. That of the bible is though.

 

[Galactic Spin]

Why would it not.

I already answered that.

Just as I don't comment on the morality of things generally regarded as morally acceptable. Like marriage. There is no debate over its morality.

Just as there was none over slavery, when the terrified, ignorant, primitive, superstitious authors write the Bible mythology.

 

[soylentgreen]

I already answered that.

Just as I don't comment on the morality of things generally regarded as morally acceptable. Like marriage. There is no debate over its morality.

Just as there was none over slavery, when the terrified, ignorant, primitive, superstitious authors write the Bible mythology.

All in all it is just another example of how the book is really just an out of date instruction manual on morality.

 

[Galactic Spin]

All in all it is just another example of how the book is really just an out of date instruction manual on morality.

Agreed. Our first and worst attempt.

 

[Gordy327]

Gods only exist in stories.

Yep, including the god of the Bible.

CHRIST most obviously did not.

That's nice. Prove it!

Prove JESUS didn't exist.

A logical fallacy, proving the negative. It's up to you to prove Jesus or God exists if you're claiming they do.

Prove it!

You first!

 

[axelthefox]

One thing i find ironic is how Christians say that the parts on slavery don't matter, yet the parts on LGBT matter.

 

[mrjurrs]

You should also recognize that slavery in biblical times was not racially-based slavery.

 

[NotreDame]

No such person as moses, pure fiction. As for the conditions of slavery is still slavery no matter how gilded the chains are.
The bible is a book of its time. It discusses slavery in the same way a person today might discuss cars or any other utility. A car maintanance manual does not bother to consider the morality of cars just how to make them work. And in this case that is all the bible is. A slave maintenance book that cares not one wit for the morality of slavery.

God did approve and actually practiced those things itself.

Maybe Moses existed, maybe he didn’t, the claim of “pure fiction” is ironically itself “pure fiction.” Unless of course you have omniscience pertain to whether Moses was historical or “pure fiction.” I digress.

To objectively evaluate the morality of how the Bible addresses slavery requires an objective moral code. Otherwise, today’s moral pronouncements, based upon an evolution of our subjective notions of morality, of how the Bible treats slavery loses its efficacy.

And indeed, this is the dilemma one is immediately confronted with who has ever entertained an upper lever undergraduate or graduate philosophy of morality/moral philosophy class. How does the contemporary generation properly assess objectively the morality of the past without an objectively existing moral code.

 

[NotreDame]

Chiefly it's because of our far superior morality and ethics. And the reformation overall of the Christian religion, which saw many of its most horrible ideas supplanted by far superior secular ideas.

What do you mean by “superior”? And what evidence do you rely for the claim of “superior morality”? What evidence do you rely for “superior” ethics?

Are you not cognizant of the historicity of morality through the annals of human history? Successive generations have made identical or similar claims of having a “superior” morality to the past. I’d be remiss if I didn’t illuminate co-existing claims of “superior morality” within a nation, state, city, society and between nations, states, cities, societies, etcetera.

Within Athens there were those professing to have some sense, or capable of discovering some aspect of a superior, objective morality, (Plato, Socrates, Aristotle and others) in relation to the Sophists.

Socrates, however, was accused of, inter alia, espousing morally bankrupt teachings to the youth of Athens. Necessarily implicit in such an allegation is a morally superior code/rule/principle to what Socrates was accused of teaching.

America itself has frequently experienced conflicting claims of moral “superiority,” and today is no different. How exactly is your claim of morality “superiority” factually demonstrated in relation to a contrary and presently competing claim of moral “superiority”? Before answering, I caution you, as David Hume rightly asserted, statements of fact, “what is” does not deduce a moral principle of “what ought/what should). See Descriptive and Positive Statements and/or Prescriptive and Normative Statements).

So, how exactly is “our” morality “superior” and to the Bible and what evidence or reasoning demonstrates this “superiority”?

Or is your comment aptly characterized as elevating your subjective notions of morality as “superior” to another?

 

[Galactic Spin]

What do you mean by “superior”?

I mean the morality and ethics of the average person in developed countries is far superior in every way to the body of morality and ethics found in the Bible. And it's not even close. My kids had better of both, when they were 6 years old.

what evidence or reasoning demonstrates this “superiority”?

Humanism, of course, as a philosophical basis.. Human well being. The superior social contract we have, right now, at this moment, is far superior in every way that matters. As expected. The evidence is the thriving of human beings, of all ages and sexes. The Bible was one of our first and worst attempts at philosophy, science, morality, and ethics. It should surprise nobody that we have outgrown this primitive attempt at these things. Our fist attempts at chemistry came in the form of Alchemy. We learned a thing or two, but we outgrew alchemy and now have no use for it.

The same goes for bronze aged mythology.

the Bible didn't so much "support" slavery, any more than you "support" wearing clothes. Slavery was ubiqiuitous, in the time the Bible was written. So, as expected, we get a book opf mythology that sets rules for slavery. The apparently "correct" way to do slavery.

We no longer need the Bible to know what is right, or what is wrong.

 

[soylentgreen]

Maybe Moses existed, maybe he didn’t, the claim of “pure fiction” is ironically itself “pure fiction.” Unless of course you have omniscience pertain to whether Moses was historical or “pure fiction.” I digress.

To objectively evaluate the morality of how the Bible addresses slavery requires an objective moral code. Otherwise, today’s moral pronouncements, based upon an evolution of our subjective notions of morality, of how the Bible treats slavery loses its efficacy.

And indeed, this is the dilemma one is immediately confronted with who has ever entertained an upper lever undergraduate or graduate philosophy of morality/moral philosophy class. How does the contemporary generation properly assess objectively the morality of the past without an objectively existing moral code.

No, there is no maybe about it. Had moses existed there would be evidence of his biblical story. But none does exist as moses does not exist.

Again I would disagree. Morality is a questionable and arbitrary grounded only when looking at the actions and beliefs of any individual in history or now. But as marx pointed out if we understand the economics and industrial level of society at large then morality is measurable against the norms of that society. For example the actual treatment of slaves compared to the moral instructions in the bible.

 

[devildavid]

Maybe Moses existed, maybe he didn’t, the claim of “pure fiction” is ironically itself “pure fiction.” Unless of course you have omniscience pertain to whether Moses was historical or “pure fiction.” I digress.

To objectively evaluate the morality of how the Bible addresses slavery requires an objective moral code. Otherwise, today’s moral pronouncements, based upon an evolution of our subjective notions of morality, of how the Bible treats slavery loses its efficacy.

And indeed, this is the dilemma one is immediately confronted with who has ever entertained an upper lever undergraduate or graduate philosophy of morality/moral philosophy class. How does the contemporary generation properly assess objectively the morality of the past without an objectively existing moral code.

Any incidents attributed to god in the Bible are pure fiction. Any extraordinary, physically impossible events in the Bible are pure fiction. That is how we determine pure fiction in any stories. The use of historical settings or people does not mean a story can’t be purely fictional. The use of stories to promote religious beliefs is good reason to think that a story is purely fictional.

Morality is not objective. Objectively, moral codes created by human beings have existed at different times and in different societies. That is the only objective thing we can study about moral codes. And it doesn’t require an upper level course in the philosophy of morality/moral philosophy.

 

[NotreDame]

PART ONE REPLY

Human well being.

The same goes for bronze aged mythology.

the Bible didn't so much "support" slavery, any more than you "support" wearing clothes. Slavery was ubiqiuitous, in the time the Bible was written. So, as expected, we get a book opf mythology that sets rules for slavery. The apparently "correct" way to do slavery.

We no longer need the Bible to know what is right, or what is wrong.

I mean the morality and ethics of the average person in developed countries is far superior in every way to the body of morality and ethics found in the Bible. And it's not even close. My kids had better of both, when they were 6 years old.

Yeah? Because you type it, it is so? No!

You’ve said nothing demonstrating superiority. You’ve provided nothing factual demonstrating superiority. You have provided no evidence demonstrating superiority.

I agree “And it’s not even close” you’ve demonstrated superiority. You’ve at best restatesd your conclusion as support for your conclusion. Such tautology, circular reasoning, doesn’t establish your conclusion.

The superior social contract we have, right now, at this moment, is far superior in every way that matters. As expected. The evidence is the thriving of human beings, of all ages and sexes. The Bible was one of our first and worst attempts at philosophy, science, morality, and ethics. It should surprise nobody that we have outgrown this primitive attempt at these things. Our fist attempts at chemistry came in the form of Alchemy. We learned a thing or two, but we outgrew alchemy and now have no use for it.

Repeating the use of the word “superior” in front of words such as “social contract” and “in every way”to support your claim of “superior” is circular reasoning, well more specifically begs the question. An issue is how “superiority” is objectively demonstrated and your reply of repeating the word without objectively showing how “superiority” is demonstrated is a poor argument.

Asserting superiority once or several occasions as you’ve done doesn’t demonstrate superiority.

You compound this by attaching “superiority” to a non-existent “social contract, that “we have right now.” (Social contract as understood by Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau).

Next, assuming a “social contract” this fact doesn’t demonstrate the existence of morality or ethics, cue David Hume. Positive statements, such as there is a “social contract” cannot logically lead to a normative statement and by extension a body of normative statements as a moral code/ethical code.

The fact the sun rose today, a fact, logically tells us nothing regarding morality and ethics. Same is true for the existence of a social contract.