Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Zombrex wrote: »

Now if you are asking what is the basis for me saying something is or isn't moral in the first place then yes there is no basis for this other than my opinion and the opinion of others.

Yup, that's absolutely the point. Using the word "inherent" is just a bit of mood music.

Zombrex wrote: »

There is, it is that slavery is God's will so long as it is done in a certain fashion.

Well, a quibble would be it means slavery is not automatically inconsistent with God's will so long as it is done in a certain fashion. That's just to put some emphasis on the "certain fashion". I'd guess the "certain fashion" in this context means a slave can't be chained to a wall and whipped, which some people may feel takes all of the fun out of being a slave.

Zombrex wrote: »

I don't know, if they were why were they called slaves?

I don't know much about it myself, but I think it was a bit like the imperial eunuchs in China. All I know about the Ottoman "slaves" is that they were generally of Christian background, and this slave status allowed them to have a status that they could not otherwise have enjoyed in an Islamic state.

Zombrex wrote: »

But that is also beside the point. If we redefine what slaves mean simply to make what Paul says sound better, when it clearly isn't what Paul was talking about, what is the point of that?

Well, I think the point is to highlight the point that Paul seems to be making, rather than seizing on the word "slave" with a cry of "aha, gottim". Because the point he seems to be making is that you shouldn't treat anyone like filth, not even a powerless person with no status.

I don't see it as saying there's a general obligation on humanity to organise its affairs so as to disempower certain subclasses. It does seem to suggest that, if you inherit a few slaves from your Auntie Maud, you can't use them as footstools the way she used to.

Zombrex

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Well, a quibble would be it means slavery is not automatically inconsistent with God's will so long as it is done in a certain fashion.

Well that is certainly what Paul believed, as well as most of the Old Testament.

You would expect though that all powerful source of morality (God) would be a little bit more progressive that simply following the moral standards of man.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

All I know about the Ottoman "slaves" is that they were generally of Christian background, and this slave status allowed them to have a status that they could not otherwise have enjoyed in an Islamic state.

Well that is an argument of lessoning degrees. In ages past women for example were often better off married that not married, as this gave them access to certain things that they would have not have access to. Of course this still sucked, even when married they had much lesser rights than a man. Just because they were better of in relative terms doesn't mean though that the situation of women was moral or good.

So if the argument is that slaves are better off in the least immoral situation, compared to the more immoral situations, then that is obvious.

If thought the argument is that this situation is therefore moral or good, well that is a completely different argument.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Well, I think the point is to highlight the point that Paul seems to be making, rather than seizing on the word "slave" with a cry of "aha, gottim".

It is not the word slave that is the "aha gottim". It is the phrase "will of God"

Again if this was just Paul commenting on slavery this wouldn't be an issue. But it isn't. It is Paul pronouncing that this is what he believes is the will of God.

And Christians put a whole lot of faith in what Paul considers the will of God, it is used as the primary justify the denouncement of homosexual unions are unChristian as they go against the will of God, which is where this whole discussion started on the other thread.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Because the point he seems to be making is that you shouldn't treat anyone like filth, not even a powerless person with no status.

See the point about the Taliban saying you should treat your kidnapped bride well. That is obviously better than treating your kidnapped bride badly, but it misses the wood for the trees if someone were to proclaim the former is morally good, as it ignores the whole immorality of the kidnapped bride bit at the start.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I don't see it as saying there's a general obligation on humanity to organise its affairs so as to disempower certain subclasses. It does seem to suggest that, if you inherit a few slaves from your Auntie Maud, you can't use them as footstools the way she used to.

Paul is supposed to be instructing his fellow Christians on what it means to be a Christian, what standard God wishes them to follow, and more importantly these instructions are supposed to apply even now, today (again this discussion came out of Christians saying that it is clearly unBiblical to suppose that homosexual marriages are Christian).

Using the same argument you could say it is clearly unBiblical to suppose that the legal abolishment of slavery is Christian. But then nearly every (unfortunately I can't say all) Christians alive today think slavery in any form is immoral and should be legally abolished. This requires a re-interpretation of these passages beyond the plain meaning. And if one Christian can do that about slavery, why can another Christian not do the same about homosexuality, or at least attempt to do it without be denounced as dishonest and self-centred by other Christians.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Zombrex wrote: »

You would expect though that all powerful source of morality (God) would be a little bit more progressive that simply following the moral standards of man. <...> See the point about the Taliban saying you should treat your kidnapped bride well. That is obviously better than treating your kidnapped bride badly, but it misses the wood for the trees if someone were to proclaim the former is morally good, as it ignores the whole immorality of the kidnapped bride bit at the start.

Grand, except that all depends on a wider consideration, which is the context in which the faithful find themselves. Clearly, we can ask why an omnipotent God would cast the faithful adrift in a world full of evil, injustice and temptation. But if we just accept for a moment that this is the situation - the faithful are here, in some imperfect and maybe even dangerous situation, and God has given them some instructions as to how to behave. You expect, over time, that the work of the faithful will reap its benefits. So, for the sake of argument, ultimately the Taliban rule the world, and the old kidnapping days are over as any woman you meet will be similarly steeped in the faith and such considerations will no longer apply.

Zombrex wrote: »

And if one Christian can do that about slavery, why can another Christian not do the same about homosexuality, or at least attempt to do it without be denounced as dishonest and self-centred by other Christians.

I'm such a contention is possible, but I'd take it that the point would hinge on whether a text is saying something is a requirement or not. I'm not sure the text is exhorting people to own slaves. It does seem to be exhorting people not to abuse positions of power.

philologos

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Grand, except that all depends on a wider consideration, which is the context in which the faithful find themselves. Clearly, we can ask why an omnipotent God would cast the faithful adrift in a world full of evil, injustice and temptation. But if we just accept for a moment that this is the situation - the faithful are here, in some imperfect and maybe even dangerous situation, and God has given them some instructions as to how to behave. You expect, over time, that the work of the faithful will reap its benefits. So, for the sake of argument, ultimately the Taliban rule the world, and the old kidnapping days are over as any woman you meet will be similarly steeped in the faith and such considerations will no longer apply.I'm such a contention is possible, but I'd take it that the point would hinge on whether a text is saying something is a requirement or not. I'm not sure the text is exhorting people to own slaves. It does seem to be exhorting people not to abuse positions of power.

An intriguing question is why is there injustice, and evil in the world? Is it God's doing? Or is it our doing?

The Bible does not at any juncture present Christians or the faithful as perfect. Rather Christians are sinners who have been saved by God's grace. Christian living is going to look at a battle. If we accept Jesus as Lord truly our being is with Him, but we are still in our flesh, and we're still in this world. We are still waiting for Jesus to return, and we're still waiting for the point of time where we will be presented perfect in Him.

Another interesting question is why do the wicked prosper (as David asks in Psalm 10)?

Another intriguing question is to ask is there anyone who has not sinned? (and by extension is there anyone other than Jesus who is entirely blameless - free from sin)?

tommy2bad

philologos wrote: »

An intriguing question is why is there injustice, and evil in the world? Is it God's doing? Or is it our doing?
It's a fallen world
The Bible does not at any juncture present Christians or the faithful as perfect. Rather Christians are sinners who have been saved by God's grace. Christian living is going to look at a battle. If we accept Jesus as Lord truly our being is with Him, but we are still in our flesh, and we're still in this world. We are still waiting for Jesus to return, and we're still waiting for the point of time where we will be presented perfect in Him.
Pie in the sky when we die?
Another interesting question is why do the wicked prosper (as David asks in Psalm 10)?
Being wicked gives an advantage, obviously
Another intriguing question is to ask is there anyone who has not sinned? (and by extension is there anyone other than Jesus who is entirely blameless - free from sin)?
Well no, but so what? Sin is falling short of Gods perfection

God wont condemn us for being less than perfect but for not trying to be better than we are.

Zombrex

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Grand, except that all depends on a wider consideration, which is the context in which the faithful find themselves. Clearly, we can ask why an omnipotent God would cast the faithful adrift in a world full of evil, injustice and temptation. But if we just accept for a moment that this is the situation - the faithful are here, in some imperfect and maybe even dangerous situation, and God has given them some instructions as to how to behave. You expect, over time, that the work of the faithful will reap its benefits.

As I asked others, are there other examples where God has instructed Christians to do something immoral in order to avoid further persecution while stating that it is good and the will of God to do it?

This interpretation seems nothing more than a modern fudge. And again if you can do that with Paul's declaration of what is good and pleases God, why can't you do that with anything else? Yes Paul says that homosexuals are sinners, but maybe God didn't really mean it that way?

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'm such a contention is possible, but I'd take it that the point would hinge on whether a text is saying something is a requirement or not. I'm not sure the text is exhorting people to own slaves. It does seem to be exhorting people not to abuse positions of power.

Ephesians 6
6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, 8 because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free.

It is good that you serve your masters with a full heart, and as such you will be reward in heaven for the good you do. It is the will of God that you serve your master and in doing so you are doing good.

There is nothing in that to suggest that Paul believes God wishes that slavery didn't exist but he is forced to work inside the system in order to spare Christians from persecution.

Also since when as God cared all that much about instructing his followers to act contrary to his morality in order to save themselves from persecution?

Doc Farrell

I am appealing to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I have become during my imprisonment... I am sending him, that is, my own heart, back to you... no longer as a slave but more than a slave, a beloved brother- especially to me but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.

Peregrinus

In defence of Paul, we have to realise that the notion of simply freeing slaves would have required an extraordinary leap of imagination - and not just on Paul’s part.

In Paul’s world, all household servants were slaves (or they were family members). In fact, the language did not contain separate words for “servant” and “slave”. (All of the "servants" mentioned in various gospel stories are slaves.)

So, suppose Paul had told a newly-baptised Christian to manumit his slave. How would the slave have fared?

He would have been free. But he also would have been without a home, without property, without status and almost certainly without any skills or experience which he could employ in any occupation open to someone who was not a slave. He wouldn’t necessarily have seen this as an improvement in his condition. There’s a sporting chance that he could only have survived by selling himself back into slavery (yes, people did this), possibly to a much nastier master, or in a much nastier occupation. (The salt mines around the Dead Sea were worked by slaves, and since life expectancy there was short they were always keen to buy new recruits.)

In the ancient world, if you manumitted your slaves - this did sometimes happen - you also gave them property, or set them up with a trade and some seed capital, or even adopted them so that they would be part of your family, and have an expectation of inheritance. Manumission made no sense, and was certainly not a benefit to the slave, unless it represented not simply an end to slave status, but an exchange of slave status for some higher status.

Now, of course, Paul could easily have told Christians who were in a position to do so to manumit their slaves and do more for them along these lines, but many slaveholders weren’t especially wealthy, and at a minimum would need to change their own lives and lifestyles, and those of their families, and work towards a position where they could treat their slaves in this way - by educating or training their slaves, by saving to build up a sum which they could give their slaves to set them up, whatever. Perhaps that’s embraced in Paul’s call to treat slaves decently and lovingly.

More realistically, though, the release of slaves was going to require significant social change - the development of a widespread labour market in which a free man of no property and minimal skills could work for a living wage. Basically, the notion of the waged employee needed to be developed and implemented on a widespread basis. Even if an individual slaveholder could imagine that, he couldn’t bring it about. Nor could Paul.

pauldla

Some good points, P, but I have to wonder if you raise more questions than you answer.

Peregrinus wrote: »

In defence of Paul, we have to realise that the notion of simply freeing slaves would have required an extraordinary leap of imagination - and not just on Paul’s part.

In fairness to Paul (and, in fact, everybody else, too), Ephesians most probably wasn’t written by Paul. An important fact to keep in mind, though one which is consistently overlooked, as it gives the epistle an authority which perhaps it does not deserve. Whoever he was, I’ll refer to him as Paul in this post, because I think Paul is a really cool name.

Peregrinus wrote: »

…..
So, suppose Paul had told a newly-baptised Christian to manumit his slave. How would the slave have fared?

The cynical among us (not I, of course), might wonder how Paul would have fared if he, and the nascent Christianity, had told slave-owners to free their slaves. As stated, the wealth of the Roman Empire rested on slavery and the slave trade (I read one source that states up to 25% of the city of Roman were slaves: at the height of its power, this would have been up to a quarter of a million people. A vast number). A mass freeing of slaves was just not on the cards, no matter who was suggesting it.

Having said that, it’s hard to square the ownership of (quite valuable) slaves with Jesus’ own teachings and pronouncements on property, wealth and salvation, is it not? It is on this point that I find ‘a Christian model of slavery’ to be a difficult concept to grasp.

Peregrinus wrote: »

He would have been free. But he also would have been without a home, without property, without status and almost certainly without any skills or experience which he could employ in any occupation open to someone who was not a slave. He wouldn’t necessarily have seen this as an improvement in his condition. There’s a sporting chance that he could only have survived by selling himself back into slavery (yes, people did this), possibly to a much nastier master, or in a much nastier occupation. (The salt mines around the Dead Sea were worked by slaves, and since life expectancy there was short they were always keen to buy new recruits.)

In the ancient world, if you manumitted your slaves - this did sometimes happen - you also gave them property, or set them up with a trade and some seed capital, or even adopted them so that they would be part of your family, and have an expectation of inheritance. Manumission made no sense, and was certainly not a benefit to the slave, unless it represented not simply an end to slave status, but an exchange of slave status for some higher status.

Roman slaves could buy their freedom if they paid an amount equal to that their master paid for them (a near impossible task). Masters sometimes freed their slaves for exceptional service, or in their wills when they died. A freedman with a trade could expect to prosper, and gained legal status in Roman law. An unskilled slave (if so freed, which would probably have been unlikely), had fewer options, as you indicate. I would imagine that most slaves would have welcomed the opportunity for freedom, though, even if it meant a worsening of their immediate living conditions (which would have been unlikely for a skilled man: the Imperial Bureaucracy was often staffed by freedmen, for example). For one thing, it would mean that their children would now not be born into slavery (which was automatic); it was not unknown for slaves to kill their babies, rather than see them live as slaves.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Now, of course, Paul could easily have told Christians who were in a position to do so to manumit their slaves and do more for them along these lines, but many slaveholders weren’t especially wealthy, and at a minimum would need to change their own lives and lifestyles, and those of their families, and work towards a position where they could treat their slaves in this way - by educating or training their slaves, by saving to build up a sum which they could give their slaves to set them up, whatever. Perhaps that’s embraced in Paul’s call to treat slaves decently and lovingly.

Freedmen became clients of their former master. The exact nature of this relationship would of course depend on the economic circumstances of the former master, but it was quite a common occurrence in Roman times, as far as I know. I anticipate a vigorous and comprehensive clarification if I am in error.

Peregrinus wrote: »

More realistically, though, the release of slaves was going to require significant social change - the development of a widespread labour market in which a free man of no property and minimal skills could work for a living wage. Basically, the notion of the waged employee needed to be developed and implemented on a widespread basis. Even if an individual slaveholder could imagine that, he couldn’t bring it about. Nor could Paul.

So, in summary: Roman society was vastly different from contemporary society in many ways, and we must be very careful in the parallels we draw between the two.

Just to restate my two points in this ongoing discussion, which I still stand by:
1. ‘A Christian model for slavery’ is unclear, and seems to me to be oxymoronic, unless one allows that the writer of Ephesians was unaware of the teachings now attributed to Jesus (which, as I have said before, is not impossible).
2. Comparisons between 1st Century slavery and modern employment norms are ridiculous.

Peregrinus

Hi Pauldla,

1. I’m happy with “Paul” as the name we give to the author of Ephesians. Whether this is the same “Paul” who is the author of other Pauline epistles is no doubt an interesting issue, but I think one we can park for the purposes of the present discussion. Let’s assume they’re all the same Paul, if only because it simplifies the discussion.

2. Paul never talks about what everyone should do; just what followers of Christ should do. Therefore he would never have advocated that everyone should free their slaves, with all the social disruption that that would entail. Whatever the followers of Christ did, in Paul’s time, was never going to have massive societal consequences; they weren’t numerous enough. But we might reasonably look to Paul for indications as to whether, or how, Christians should be slaveholders. And I think it’s fair for us to note that he could condemn the practice, but he doesn’t.

3. You make a good point about the tension between slaveholding as an indicator of wealth, and what Jesus has to say about wealth. And, in fact, even disregarding the problem of slaveholding, this is a recurring problem for Christianity. One suggested reason for why Christian teaching about sexuality receives such emphasis at times, even though it’s a pretty minor theme in the scriptures, is that focusing on sex helps wealthy Christian societies to avoid the problematic issue of their wealth. Irksome as it may be to keep it in your codpiece until you’re married, it’s still a good deal more congenial than selling all you have and giving the money to the poor. And, the more you have, the truer this is. Plus, if you lay great stress on the central importance of keeping it in your codpiece, then the fact that you have kept it in your codpiece illustrates that you are person of virtue, and explains why God has favoured you with wealth and prosperity, so your situation is quite, quite different from the young man in the gospel, and it would be presumptuous of you to challenge the workings of divine providence.

4. OK, I’m being a bit cynical, and very simplistic. But it is generally true that the rise of sexual puritanism is associated with the rise of capitalism, and that it’s in newly-prosperous urbanizing societies where it tends to be strongest. And I suspect there’s some truth to the view that fidelity to Christian sexual ethics at least partly serves as a figleaf for the fact that society is uncomfortably challenged by Christian teaching on justice and wealth.

5. To us, the notion of a Christian model of slavery seems utterly and obviously impossible; ludicrous if not actually blasphemous. But I think we must accept that this was not quite so obvious to the first generation of Christians, even if they did know what Christ had said about wealth. We see slaves as property and property as wealth, and to us the problem is obvious. But to them, the question of slavery was part of a wider question of social organization and social status and interpersonal relationships. Slaves had a recognized place in society, albeit a lowish place, and in that respect they were not terribly different from many others who had low social standing. Indeed, they didn’t have the lowest status; as pointed out, their position could conceivably be made worse by being manumitted.

6. So I think there were two problems in the way of an early and comprehensive Christian rejection of slavery. First, they had to imagine it as a possibility, which meant completely re-imagining (and in time re-making) society. Secondly, they had to learn, and come to terms with, Jesus’ teachings on wealth, and then work out what that meant for them not just personally but as a society, and apply that to slavery. Either of these project was going to take time. Neither of them was really relevant to Paul’s agenda. Probably 90% of what Paul writes about is the significance of Christ - not Christ’s teaching, about he says practically nothing, or about Christ’s life, about which he says even less, but about Christ himself, and in particular his incarnation, death and resurrection. He touches on a great many other subjects, including slavery, but doesn’t deal comprehensively with very many of them, and certainly not with slavery.

philologos

tommy2bad wrote: »

God wont condemn us for being less than perfect but for not trying to be better than we are.

How does this work? Why won't God condemn us for failing to reach His standard?

This is getting interesting

HHobo

nagirrac wrote: »

Seeing as you want to take this "high road" position

If taking the stance that slavery is wrong and those who condone it are being immoral can be sneered at as a kind of moral pomposity then we might as well surrender any pretence of common moral ground.

nagirrac wrote: »

for balance can you outline your position on child labor in China? Do you
unequivocally condemn it, in the same fashion as I assume you would condemn all other human slavery.

Are you really drawing a moral equivalence between something people do for survival, child labour, and the owning of people for convienience and profit? Whenever child labour stops being the former and become the latter, I think any moral person will be completely against it. The slavery of Paul's day was not remotely equivalent to dirt poor people just trying to survive.

nagirrac wrote: »

If you cannot condemn child labor in China then I would not call you a big fat dirty liar but I would call you a hypocrite in the same mold as Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris. One cannot be selective about human rights violations.

If you deliberately ignore relevant context, equivocate between someone willing to accept a harsh necessity for survival and someone "having no problem" (as Phil claimed he didn't with the passage in question) you should be a little more careful with the word hypocrite. There are no morally serious people who would not want to see the practice of child labour eradicated everywhere. Most of us just aren't willing to kill children to achieve that end.
Your comparison is as ridiculous as comparing an africa dictator stealing aid money to a person stealing a loaf of bread to feed their kids. You would be calling someone a hypocrite for condeming crime on the one hand and accepting it on the other.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Zombrex wrote: »

It is good that you serve your masters with a full heart, and as such you will be reward in heaven for the good you do. It is the will of God that you serve your master and in doing so you are doing good.

There is nothing in that to suggest that Paul believes God wishes that slavery didn't exist but he is forced to work inside the system in order to spare Christians from persecution.

It's absolutely not a political agenda for social change. Paul isn't saying that slaves should unite in revolt, and put their former masters on trial for crimes against humanity. But neither is it particularly a defence of slavery, per se. It's more a suggestion that people, through religion, can transcend their physical circumstances, and make drudgery divine. Your granny might have said something like "offer it up". (Queue response confirming that you're a third generation atheist.)

JimiTime

Zombrex wrote: »

I take it by that you mean I don't often get outraged.

Thats right. Not in my experience with you anyway. Certainly not in the manner you did earlier.

True, I tend to save it up for when I'm truly angered by something.

I don't think you have cause to be angered tbh, but if you genuinely feel the way you do, then by all means ignore Phil. I really think you'll be losing the input of a valuable poster though, who tends to be quite thoughtful and patient in the face of the abuse he gets all over these boards. But hey, thats me. I once had you on ignore until I realised your value :) I think you'll probably see your initial assessment was a bit rash.

Phil is arguing that there is a good form of slavery, a God approved form of slavery.

He's not really. Well not in the way thats been suggested anyway. He's discussing Ephesians, the scripture you brought up, and telling you how the idea we have of slavery, is actually shot apart when we look at whats being said. Be Christ-like is the message (And lets not forget 'do unto others...'), so in reality, is it anything like the idea we may have of slavery? I don't think that there is a good form of slavery, but I do think that there is slavery that would have been ok for the slave. Back in the day, in certain circumstances, it was probably better to have the protection, provisions etc of a master than to be out on your own with nothing. In some respects, it may have a been a bit of a social welfare of its time.

What do you want my response to be? Limiting it down to comments that wouldn't break the charter, my responses are shortened to basically Don't be so stupid no there isn't a good form of slavery.

I know Phil, as a poster, long enough to know he's not going to be looking to bring back slavery, and that he'd probably do more than the both of us to make sure it didn't happen if for some reason the concept was to gain traction in the modern age.

I don't see any evidence from Phil that he is prepared to accept that. Once someone is prepared to arguing such an immoral position as the gospel truth I'm not really sure what point there is continuing to discuss anything with them.

So your issue with Phil, is that you believe that he thinks its ok for one man to own another man? I have to say, I don't get that from his posts.

BTW do you think there is a good, Christian, form of slavery?

No I don't, but if you happen to be a slave, then there is a Christian way to behave as one. Remember, the goal of the Christian is to Love. Sharing the good news of the Kingdom is much more effective in practice. Being meek, righteous and loving will be a much better witness than being verbose, and masters are people too. The goal is not to start a big political push for the self, but to share the good news of the Kingdom to come.
From a masters perspective, and I believe that this is what Phil has constantly alluded to, Pauls advice would surely mean the end of slavery amongst Christians. Or maybe the end to any abusive form of it. Maybe the goal was not to end slavery, as maybe at the time, as I alluded to earlier, slavery may have been an arrangement that benefitted the slave more than the alternatives.

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, 8 because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free.

9 And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

Well no actually I'm not, I try and be quite careful about the ethical sourcing of my products.

Well your disgust earlier would lead me to believe that you would do more than try. You could live without using, wearing etc any dodgy products. You'd probably have to sacrifice a few things, but the concept so outraged you, I would have thought you could be more certain about what you use/wear etc.

But that is some what irrelevant, isn't it? Do you actually want everyone to stop caring about slavery because they buy cloths from sweat shops? Would that improve things? "Slavery has made a startling come back, but at least we got rid of all the hypocrites"

The relevance is not to the topic, but rather to the level of your outrage at Phil.

If the best defence you can come up with for someone supporting slavery is well sure don't you all buy cloths from unethical factories, I think you need to have a think about your moral priorities and what you are attempting to achieve by that.

Firstly, I see no-one supporting slavery. Secondly, if someone is pontificating about how disgusting and morally outrageous slavery is, while at the same time reaping the rewards of it, it does rather undermine their outrage. Its like the people who I know that hate the drugs issues, and all the gangster goings on, but at the same time support the 'industry' by buying hash from the drugs network. But anyway, I'm not looking to shut down the conversation, or offer such things as defenses for slavery. I'm just mentioning it in the hope you'll stop the 'I'm outraged' thing.

Ok, but then irrelevant because Paul is not stating that God reluctantly wishes slaves to submit to their masters, but that God in fact wants them to, and will reward them for doing so.

5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart.

Does God regularly instruct his people to do what is immoral whole heartily and from the heart? God instructing you to do something whole heartily because it is the will of God would imply that it is desired, would it not?

God is NOT instructing something Immoral. He's not saying, 'You must keep slaves....', Paul is instructing people who happen to be slaves to behave a certain way.

In 1 Samuel 8 God is saying give them what they want, tell them how bad it will be and watch them ignore me and you and face the consequences of their hubris.

Is that what Paul is doing here? Is he teaching these Christians a lesson by letting telling them to submit to their masters knowing the outcome will be dire?

The point is to show that just because something is allowed, does not mean it is desired, or indeed necessary. God, or Paul, is not commanding people that they must keep slaves. He is telling people that if they are slaves or masters, and also Christians, then they have a responsibility to behave a certain way. What was Jesus' advice when asked if The Jews should pay head tax? He said, 'Pay what is Caesars to Caesar and what is Gods to God'. This is not an approval of Roman occupation.
When we also consider, 'Turn the other cheek' and 'Love your enemy', you begin to see a pattern. God is concerned with the eternal wellbeing of people. The mistake a lot of people, including some Christians, make when looking at turn to the other cheek etc, is that they see it as an ends. Its not. God also says, 'Vengeance is mine'. In other words, where appropriate, ultimately, Justice will be done. We are to be a living witness to Christ and his ways. So again, when slaves are told to behave a certain way, its not only for their sake, but for the sake of their masters and those around them. It also doesn't mean you are being told to keep slaves.

There is actually nothing in the Bible that says God only wanted one man and one women to marry. What you, and all Christians who think marriage is one man and one woman, is inferring that from the fact that the only examples Jesus ever uses are ones where there is one man and one woman, and that these reference back to Genesis where the example is one man and one woman.

That is the most far fetched of garbage. Jesus explicitly tells us of Gods will, referring to Genesis. The man - woman dynamic being a reflection of God. He also, while fulfilling the ceremonial law, reinforced the moral law of the OT, and in fact took it to a higher level when he talked about not letting lust into your heart etc. When Jesus condemns sexual immorality as a 1st century Jew, to an audience of Jews, you'd want to be quite stupid, or wilfully ignorant to believe that he wasn't talking about the sexual immorality that a 1st century Jew would have known from the OT.

The arguments using to explain this away are pretty much whole sale the arguments used by other Christians for homosexual unions.

You couldn't be more wrong.

Paul is regulating something for the time (slavery), doesn't mean God approves of it in the grand scheme of things.
Paul is regulating something for the time (homosexuality), doesn't mean God doesn't approve of it in the grand scheme of things.

Paul is NOT regulating slavery. He's telling Christians who are slaves, their responsibility as Christians, and also Christians who are masters, how their responsibility as Christians.
Paul does NOT regulate homosexuality, he blatantly condemns it. Just as Moses did and Jesus did.

When Paul says "slavery" he is not talking about slavery as we would understand it (it is little more than professional service)
When Paul says "homosexual" he is not talking about homosexuals as we would understand it (ie men visiting male prostitutes)

Ah here (leave it ou)... This is ridiculous, you must know how ridiculous this is. You can't get any clearer than the mosaic law on homosexuality. Jesus reinforced it, and Paul restated it. Its got nothing to do with prostitutes.

Just because the only descriptions of slavery in the Bible regulate slavery doesn't mean it is what God the be all and end all of God's view on slavery.
Just because the only descriptions of marriage in the Bible have one man and one woman doesn't mean that is the be all and end all of God's view for human marriage.

Nice try, but you know your are squiffing it all. You really aint that stupid.

There is no explicate approval from Jesus for slavery, and when we apply his other teaches to the issue it becomes clear that we should not put other people in bondage, even if they did so in the time of Israel.

I'm glad you realise this.

There is no explicate denouncing from Jesus of same sex marriage, and when we apply his other teachings to the issue it becomes clear that we should allow loving homosexual couples to marry each other even if they didn't in the time of Israel.

etc etc.

Absolutely AWFUL reasoning there Zombrex.

Jesus doesn't say you can't marry your horse neither. He tells you Gods standard, which tells you all other standards are NOT of God. Jesus EXPLICITLY reinforces the moral law which includes, man lying with man being an abomination.

HHobo

nagirrac wrote: »

The relevance of the question is we have to be consistent in opposing all human rights violations. I assume you would agree with me that the views of Hitchens and Harris should be condemned for being selective on moral issues. Personally I have zero admiration for someone who supports "some" human rights violations.

You are really flogging the Harris and Hitchens point. It is dishonest. Neither Harris nor Hitchens has ever condoned any human rights violations, at least that I am aware of. You are completely ignoring all context and their actual arguments. It is not equivalent to say that sometimes we have to do some distasteful things in self defence and arguing that the distateful things themselves are ok. For example, most people accept that in war you will have to kill people. They do not therefore assume that killing people under any conditions is just dandy. Would you accuse a former soldier who disagrees with random purposeless bombing of other nations as being "selective" in his human rights abuses? Context is not something you can just ignore when it suits you. Phil has defended, even stated he would have no problem with the form of slavery Paul was talking about. That was the owning of people, as forced labour, for convienience and profit. I disagreed with Hitchens on Iraq but I recognise his point of view as having some merit. Harris is a case study in how futile it is to try to make a nuanced point in the modern world. Harris argues that the Isrealies are not the Nazis and the Palestinians are not the innocent angels they are made out to be. His point is that Isreal would be wiped out entirely by their neighbours if they ever got the chance (there are many instances of this being openly declared) and that in the face of this genocidal hate, they try harder than any nation in history in anything like similar circumstances to operate as lawfully as possible. I don't entirely agree with him on the last point but again, his view does have some merit. He has never argued that the bad things that happen in the course of this nasty conflict are not bad, that abuses are not abuses, he is solely arguing that given the situation, Isreal has shown remarkable restraint in dealing with neighbours who have declared their genocidal intentions. They are painted entirely as the bad guys and the Palestinians the good guys. Sucicide bombing by the Palestinians are excused where strikes by Isreal are considered state sanctioned terrorism. Is Isreal doing everything right, of course not. Have they done some heineous things?, yes. Arguing that the situation is not nearly as black and white as people in the west tend to think it is, in not the same as being selective in human rights abuses.

You assume by fiat, that Harris and Hitchens are not just wrong but they are wrong for moral reasons. They are simply condoning the human rights abuses against people they don't like or don't care about and getting all upset only if religions do the bad things. Nevermind what their actual arguments are, they are just being immoral because their view of the situation is different from yours. Neither one has ever, to my knowledge, condoned human rights violations. It is a deep and wonderful irony that both Hitchens and Harris are both arguing that the problem is one of selection of what we get morally all worked up about.

nagirrac wrote: »

Personally I have zero admiration for someone who supports "some" human rights violations.

You seem to get all worked up over people being selective about their "support" for some human rights violations and yet you have leapt to the defence of Phil and his open admission to not having an issue with slavery so long as its the right kind.

You can discern the apparent immorality in the nuanced arguments of atheists without any problems but for some reason the open refusal to condemn slavery by a religious person manages to slip under your radar.

Your denounciation of people with selective preference for particular human rights violations seems oddly selective.

HHobo

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'm afraid this just isn't adding up for me, and I still don't see any basis for this inherent morality, other than your personal assertion that it be so. In other words, it's not that slavery is inherently wrong in any sense; it's simply that you expect most people, like yourself, to accept it as wrong in commonsense terms.

Let's not ignore centuries of vibrant moral debate that have led us to this place.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Didn't the Ottoman Turks have a class of administrators who were notionally slaves, but who were personally wealthy and free in all but name?

Then they were not slaves.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

On the other hand, someone living in a house in negative equity is notionally free, but actually can't sell up and move on.

They can allow the bank to take back what it essentially owns anyway and go on their way. They are noting like slaves.

We are talking about people being owned as property.

HHobo

Zombrex wrote: »

Its like saying look how progressive the Taliban are being is being when they order their members that they should love their kidnapped child brides and not abuse them.

If I was objecting to the kidnapping of girls to be brides and someone said "But Zombrex you are ignoring the most important part! The Taliban say treat your kidnapped child brides well and love them like all your other wives! You refuse to acknowledge how good this is!" I would have the same reaction. I'm not ignoring it, I'm rejecting the premiss.

Brilliantly well put Zom.

Zombrex

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

It's absolutely not a political agenda for social change.

I agree (I don't know why people keep pointing this out to me)

It is an agenda for being moral in order to please God. Paul considered slaves submitting to their slave masters as the correct and moral way to behave.

He wasn't trying to abolish slavery, that is precisely the point, he thought slavery was the correct way society should be run. What he was concerned about was instructing Christians slaves what is the correct way to behave as slaves in order to please God.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Paul isn't saying that slaves should unite in revolt, and put their former masters on trial for crimes against humanity. But neither is it particularly a defence of slavery, per se. It's more a suggestion that people, through religion, can transcend their physical circumstances, and make drudgery divine.

Again yes, I agree. Paul thought slavery was the will of God. To be a good Christian slaves should submit to their masters and serve them with full and open hearts just as they serve Jesus.

Paul sees slavery as simply the way God wishes it to be, and he sees Christians slaves as having a duty to honour this system.

There is nothing at all in the passages to even suggest that Paul sees slavery as immoral. On the other hand Paul has no problem denouncing things that he actually views as immoral, such as prostitution, and demanding that Christians stop participating in such systems immediately. There is no discussion or apparent concern on Paul's part as to what the social consequences of this would be, because frankly Paul is not concerned about the social consequences, he is concerned with instructing his fellow Christians to stop sinning because the moment of judgement is fast approaching.

Zombrex

Peregrinus wrote: »

In defence of Paul, we have to realise that the notion of simply freeing slaves would have required an extraordinary leap of imagination - and not just on Paul’s part.

In Paul’s world, all household servants were slaves (or they were family members). In fact, the language did not contain separate words for “servant” and “slave”. (All of the "servants" mentioned in various gospel stories are slaves.)

So, suppose Paul had told a newly-baptised Christian to manumit his slave. How would the slave have fared?

He would have been free. But he also would have been without a home, without property, without status and almost certainly without any skills or experience which he could employ in any occupation open to someone who was not a slave.

This argument really has no legs. There is no indication from the rest of the New Testament that Paul was overly concerned with instruction people to continue immoral behavior because the realities of the time meant it was choosing the lesser of two evils.

The same argument you make above about slaves could be said about prostitutes. Yet Paul has no problem denouncing prostitution. How was a reformed prostitute suppose to support herself, given that she problem turned to prostitution in the first place in order to support herself?

The New Testament has no problem instructing Christians to do things that have no earthly benefit to them, and in fact can produce very negative earthly outcomes. Christians by the thousands were persecuted and executed for following the moral guidelines of Christianity.

The excuse for this is that it is better to be moral, suffer in this life and be rewarded in heaven, than to be immoral in this life for short term gain while facing damnation in the after life.

Matthew 18
8 If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. 9 And if your eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.

nagirrac

HHobo wrote: »

Neither Harris nor Hitchens has ever condoned any human rights violations, at least that I am aware of.... I disagreed with Hitchens on Iraq but I recognise his point of view as having some merit. ...Isreal has shown remarkable restraint in dealing with neighbours who have declared their genocidal intentions.

You seem to get all worked up over people being selective about their "support" for some human rights violations and yet you have leapt to the defence of Phil and his open admission to not having an issue with slavery so long as its the right kind.

You can discern the apparent immorality in the nuanced arguments of atheists without any problems but for some reason the open refusal to condemn slavery by a religious person manages to slip under your radar.

First of all I am not "leaping to Phil's defense". His argument, as I understand it, is as a devout Christian and how a Christian should behave. I am not religious and do not share his religious views. Rather than defending Phil (if you actually read my posts), I am merely pointing out that atheists do not understand the religious mindset and if you need proof of that read back over the thread. For clarity on my view on slavery, involuntary slavery is immoral, period. There is plenty of it going on today, so lets concern ourselves with that and how to combat it (refusing to buy products from countries that engage in child labor would be a good start).

To someone with a clear unbiased mind the question is what is the relevance today and appropriate response to human rights abuses by the Romans in the 1st century. Should we boycott Gucci and Armani, stop drinking Pelligrini and Peroni, stop eating nutella, turn off the TV if Milan are playing? No, let's blame the Christians, a small religious sect at the time, for not opposing slavery strongly enough and hastening their crucifixions. What a ridiculous position, the shallowness of the atheist argument is mindboggling at times.

On the specific issue of war and human rights, there are really only two moral positions. Either all war is immoral in that violence towards other human beings is always immoral, or some wars are justified in self defense. The Iraq war was completely unjustified, it was an unprovoked invasion of a soverign country based on lies tying that country to 9/11 and the imminent threat of weapons of mass destruction. A significant percentage of the population of the US and their allies were misled into war by lying politicians. For Hitchens to join in this lie and maintain the lie long after most people had recognized it as such is inexcusable. Sorry, no merit involved whatsoever.

I fully agree Israel has the right to defend itself against aggression and support that right. However, this does not give it the right to treat an ethnic group living within its own borders as sub-human, as it has since the formation of the state. History shows over and over if you deny basic human rights to a group of people based on their ethnicity, race, whatever, they will eventually resort to violence.

Northern Ireland is the perfect example, and there you see the same moral selectivity problem expressed by a large percentage of the population of the Republic of Ireland. The armchair moral police who were outraged at human rights violations around the world, yet oblivious to the abuses 50 miles north of them. The same mind set that calls those that eventually said enough is enough and fought back as "dregs of society". The dregs of society are those that maintained an apartheid state for 50 years, defended it by violence against its own citizens, and those that supported them.

There is nothing nuanced about supporting an illegal and unjust war or defending ethnic discrimination.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

HHobo wrote: »

They can allow the bank to take back what it essentially owns anyway and go on their way. They are noting like slaves.

We are talking about people being owned as property.

Well, what I was trying to explain there was folk could have their liberty restricted in all kinds of ways. But if someone doesn't know that Irish mortgage lenders typically have recourse to the borrower, the point will be lost.

Zombrex wrote: »

He wasn't trying to abolish slavery, that is precisely the point, he thought slavery was the correct way society should be run. What he was concerned about was instructing Christians slaves what is the correct way to behave as slaves in order to please God.

This might be why people keep pointing it out to you. It's because you are over-egging the pudding. I don't see anything that particularly suggests he thought slavery was the correct way society should be run. He simply set out a view of how a slave and slaveowner should interact.

If he was talking today, he might give advice on what to do if you found yourself in negative equity with a full recourse mortgage. Given his advice on slavery, I think it's unlikely that his advice would be to send jingle mail to your mortgage lender and get the next plane to the UK. I suspect he might say give every spare penny to repaying the loan in full, as if you owed the money to God.

That wouldn't be the same as him advising people to get absolutely up to their oxters in debt. There is a significant gap there that you are leaping over.

pauldla

nagirrac wrote: »

....
To someone with a clear unbiased mind the question is what is the relevance today and appropriate response to human rights abuses by the Romans in the 1st century. Should we boycott Gucci and Armani, stop drinking Pelligrini and Peroni, stop eating nutella, turn off the TV if Milan are playing? No, let's blame the Christians, a small religious sect at the time, for not opposing slavery strongly enough and hastening their crucifixions. What a ridiculous position, the shallowness of the atheist argument is mindboggling at times.
....

As far as I am aware, nobody is asking for 'an appropriate response to human rights abuses by the Romans in the 1st Century'; barring the development of time travel technology, the idea is nonsensical. For my part, I have been asking about how a 'Christian model of slavery' can be described or justified; some of the comments I have seen have been thoughtful, some not. Nor I do not see any contributor blaming Christians for Roman slavery. The only shallow argument I can see is your synopsis above, which, I believe, is called a straw man.

pauldla

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

....
If he was talking today, he might give advice on what to do if you found yourself in negative equity with a full recourse mortgage. Given his advice on slavery, I think it's unlikely that his advice would be to send jingle mail to your mortgage lender and get the next plane to the UK. I suspect he might say give every spare penny to repaying the loan in full, as if you owed the money to God.

That wouldn't be the same as him advising people to get absolutely up to their oxters in debt. There is a significant gap there that you are leaping over.

Paul as a financial adviser! There's a thought.

Maybe his advice in the situation above might be:

Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
Matthew 19:21

When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
Luke 18:22

Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
Mark 10:21

But then again, maybe it wouldn't.

Peregrinus

Zombrex wrote: »

This argument really has no legs. There is no indication from the rest of the New Testament that Paul was overly concerned with instruction people to continue immoral behavior because the realities of the time meant it was choosing the lesser of two evils.

I’m not seeking to give Paul a free pass here. I think we’re entitled to be critical of Paul’s failures to say what ought to be said about slavery. But I think our criticism will be stronger if we make some attempt to come to grips with the issue of slavery as it presented itself to Paul. If our criticism amounts to little more than slamming Paul for not living in our world and having our insights and knowing what we know about slavery, it’s not a very trenchant criticism.

Zombrex wrote: »

The same argument you make above about slaves could be said about prostitutes. Yet Paul has no problem denouncing prostitution. How was a reformed prostitute suppose to support herself, given that she problem turned to prostitution in the first place in order to support herself?

That’s a fair comparison. A couple of thoughts occur to me.

First, again, Paul isn’t saying that everyone should avoid prostitution - just that Christians should. That’s not going to deprive a prostitute of all, or even much, of her custom.

Obviously, Paul would say that a prostitute who becomes a Christian should give up prostitution. But Paul would also say, I think, that the community should look after and support someone who give up her livelihood/position to embrace Christianity, and the early Christian community was noted for the high degree of social and communal support that it offered to its members.

Secondly, in Paul’s view, I think, prostitution is wicked for the prostitute as well as for the client. Therefore they will both benefit spiritually if the prostitution trade collapses. But it’s obviously not the case that slavery is wicked for the slave - it’s harmful to the slave, obviously, but he does no evil in being a slave, and being freed is not an act of virtue on his part.

But I think I have to accept that slaveholding - even benevolent, “paternal” slaveholding - is intrinsically wicked for, and morally and spiritually corrosive to, the slaveholder. Even if it’s not immediately practicable to do so, slaveholders should want to manumit their slaves, and at a miminum should acknowledge a moral imperative to do what has to be done to make it practicable. And Paul should say this. And he doesn’t.

And my guess is that that’s probably because Paul fails to discern the intrinsic moral evil of slavery. And that’s because a Christian anthropology which stresses the dignity, worth and integrity of the individual independent of social or economic status has yet to be developed and articulated. Paul possibly lays some of the foundations for such an anthropology (“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”) but it’s well after his lifetime before it gets worked out. (Indeed, perhaps we’re still at it.)

JimiTime

Peregrinus wrote: »

I’m not seeking to give Paul a free pass here. I think we’re entitled to be critical of Paul’s failures to say what ought to be said about slavery. But I think our criticism will be stronger if we make some attempt to come to grips with the issue of slavery as it presented itself to Paul. If our criticism amounts to little more than slamming Paul for not living in our world and having our insights and knowing what we know about slavery, it’s not a very trenchant criticism.


That’s a fair comparison. A couple of thoughts occur to me.

First, again, Paul isn’t saying that everyone should avoid prostitution - just that Christians should. That’s not going to deprive a prostitute of all, or even much, of her custom.

Obviously, Paul would say that a prostitute who becomes a Christian should give up prostitution. But Paul would also say, I think, that the community should look after and support someone who give up her livelihood/position to embrace Christianity, and the early Christian community was noted for the high degree of social and communal support that it offered to its members.

Secondly, in Paul’s view, I think, prostitution is wicked for the prostitute as well as for the client. Therefore they will both benefit spiritually if the prostitution trade collapses. But it’s obviously not the case that slavery is wicked for the slave - it’s harmful to the slave, obviously, but he does no evil in being a slave, and being freed is not an act of virtue on his part.

But I think I have to accept that slaveholding - even benevolent, “paternal” slaveholding - is intrinsically wicked for, and morally and spiritually corrosive to, the slaveholder. Even if it’s not immediately practicable to do so, slaveholders should want to manumit their slaves, and at a miminum should acknowledge a moral imperative to do what has to be done to make it practicable. And Paul should say this. And he doesn’t.

And my guess is that that’s probably because Paul fails to discern the intrinsic moral evil of slavery. And that’s because a Christian anthropology which stresses the dignity, worth and integrity of the individual independent of social or economic status has yet to be developed and articulated. Paul possibly lays some of the foundations for such an anthropology (“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”) but it’s well after his lifetime before it gets worked out. (Indeed, perhaps we’re still at it.)

The question then arises, if you are a Christian, that if you believe Paul should be held to account on this, then you are also saying that God should. The fact is, that God did not communicate an explicit condemnation on slavery. It may have been an institution he planned on using for the spread of the Good News. To this day, the gospel message resonates with those who are lowly, as it offers hope and justice etc. Maybe these slaves being Christ like were a way into the higher remnants of society. Changing things from the inside. Letting an evolution take place. Maybe some kind of slave revolt would have ultimately damaged the Christian message, which is what is truly important. Just like Jesus didn't stop the Romans in his earthly ministry, like the Jews were expecting. As I said previously, God is concerned with our eternal concerns. The spiritual battles. He seeks humility and grace from us. Christ like ways. Jesus came himself as a servant, and calls us to be slaves of his, seeking first the kingdom.

Peregrinus

JimiTime wrote: »

The question then arises, if you are a Christian, that if you believe Paul should be held to account on this, then you are also saying that God should.

Ah. Well, there you raise a couple of theological doozies which have troubled Christianity for the past two thousand years, and aren’t about to stop.

1. Who are we, to presume to “hold God to account” for anything?

Or, on the other hand:

2. Isn’t God ultimately accountable for everything?

These are both valid questions, but answering them (a) would take this discussion off in about fifteen other directions simultaneously, and (b) is beyond me.

JimiTime wrote: »

The fact is, that God did not communicate an explicit condemnation on slavery.

Mmm. I think you’ve got a very reductive view of scripture there - a sort of “final and conclusive letter from God”. God may well have communicated unambiguous condemnations of slavery, but we - the church, the believing community, the people of God - may have failed to discern them, or to receive them, or may have done so only after the reception and canonization of scripture was complete.

I don’t think even the strictest and most fundamental simplistic biblical literalist would assert that, if it’s not explicitly condemned in scripture, it’s not condemned and it’s morally A-OK. If that was the case, then there would be no moral issue with heroin addition or heroin trafficking, there would be no moral issue with child pornography, there would be no moral issue with nuclear weapons, there would be no moral issue with pre-marital sex, there would be no moral issue with a whole host of things which in fact raise acute moral issues.

JimiTime wrote: »

It may have been an institution he planned on using for the spread of the Good News. To this day, the gospel message resonates with those who are lowly, as it offers hope and justice etc. Maybe these slaves being Christ like were a way into the higher remnants of society. Changing things from the inside. Letting an evolution take place. Maybe some kind of slave revolt would have ultimately damaged the Christian message, which is what is truly important. Just like Jesus didn't stop the Romans in his earthly ministry, like the Jews were expecting. As I said previously, God is concerned with our eternal concerns. The spiritual battles. He seeks humility and grace from us. Christ like ways. Jesus came himself as a servant, and calls us to be slaves of his, seeking first the kingdom.

Slavery as part of God’s plan? Suffer a great evil, so that a greater good can unfold? There’s a danger here that we end up thinking of God as treating people as a means, not an end. Which, of course, is an intrinsic moral no-no, and therefore something which it is inconceivable that God could do.

There’s a slight parallel in the “theology” that suggest that God tolerates, e.g. the Holocaust because such a great evil offers opportunities for us to practice great virtues. This is a blasphemy - a well-intentioned blasphemy, no doubt, but a blasphemy nevertheless.

philologos

JimiTime: Zombrex was going to be "outraged" irrespective of what I said. I thought some of his other points were worth addressing, I may respond to some more irrespective if whether Zombtex leaves me in ignore. They might be beneficial to clarify.

Zombrex

Peregrinus wrote: »

I’m not seeking to give Paul a free pass here. I think we’re entitled to be critical of Paul’s failures to say what ought to be said about slavery. But I think our criticism will be stronger if we make some attempt to come to grips with the issue of slavery as it presented itself to Paul. If our criticism amounts to little more than slamming Paul for not living in our world and having our insights and knowing what we know about slavery, it’s not a very trenchant criticism.

Just to be clear, I'm not slamming Paul. Paul as a person means very little to me, he is after all dead. To put it in atheist vernacular, Paul was "just some guy".

The issue is that Christians even today take what Paul said as representing the will of God. Christians supporting slavery based on Paul's sayings isn't much of an issue any more (unfortunately it seems some what of an issue), but Paul's words are still used to support various positions with regular to sexual morality, such as being opposed to homosexual marriage for Christians, under the idea that this is against God's will as represented by Paul.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Obviously, Paul would say that a prostitute who becomes a Christian should give up prostitution. But Paul would also say, I think, that the community should look after and support someone who give up her livelihood/position to embrace Christianity, and the early Christian community was noted for the high degree of social and communal support that it offered to its members.

Would this not also apply to freed slaves? Christian masters, free your slaves and if they need support then help them support themselves?

Again this seems reaching. Paul's focus is on doing what is holy in order to prepare oneself for judgement. Paul seems to view being a good dutiful slave as not only good for the slave from the point of view of not being mistreated, but good from the point of view of the slaves duty to God.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Secondly, in Paul’s view, I think, prostitution is wicked for the prostitute as well as for the client. Therefore they will both benefit spiritually if the prostitution trade collapses. But it’s obviously not the case that slavery is wicked for the slave - it’s harmful to the slave, obviously, but he does no evil in being a slave, and being freed is not an act of virtue on his part.

That is a good point that would make sense if Paul had simply said slaves should endure slavery. But he doesn't, he says slaves should willfully submit to serving their masters.

Or to put it another way, Paul does think that you can be an immoral slave, by not serving as a slave should. Paul doesn't explicate state it, but it is implied that actual rebelling against your slave master, or even serving in a state of aggression or resentment, is considered sinful.

If this was just instructions on how to get through slavery without pissing off your master then why bring the will of God into it at all?

Peregrinus wrote: »

Even if it’s not immediately practicable to do so, slaveholders should want to manumit their slaves, and at a miminum should acknowledge a moral imperative to do what has to be done to make it practicable. And Paul should say this. And he doesn’t.

It also doesn't require throwing your previous slaves out to the wilderness. A few posters have tried to make the point that if slaves were "free" they would simply face poverty and starvation. But as you say it would be Christian duty to care for the free slaves after you have freed them. You wouldn't be expected as a Christian to simply turn them lose and then turn your back to them.

Again the point is not to slam Paul, simply to point out that the argument that Paul was not saying slavery is the will of God are very weak. In fact far weaker than the argument saying that Paul's denouncing of homosexuality don't apply to modern gay marriage.

And yet Christians (most of them at least) think slavery is completely against what God wants where as homosexual marriage is not part of God's plan, based primarily on Paul's teaching.

Peregrinus wrote: »

And my guess is that that’s probably because Paul fails to discern the intrinsic moral evil of slavery. And that’s because a Christian anthropology which stresses the dignity, worth and integrity of the individual independent of social or economic status has yet to be developed and articulated.

And can the same progressive thinking not be fairly used to argue that homosexual marriage is not unChristian?

Or at least be argued without being denounced by other Christians as being a selfish and immoral line of thinking?

HHobo

nagirrac wrote: »

I am merely pointing out that atheists do not understand the religious mindset and if you need proof of that read back over the thread.

Given that most atheists were formerly religious, many devout, this is simply not true. They understand quite well the religious perspective, they just don't think it is a valid excuse. Phil wasn't alive in Paul's day. Phil is alive today. He refuses to denounce slavery in principle because it might show that Paul was not the moral giant he desperately wants to believe he was.

In any case, I don't particular understand how racists think, that doesn't really bother me all that much when I denounce racism. I don't particularly feel the need to contort my thinking to understand better how the racist thinks about the issue to try to make excuses for backward and immoral views.

nagirrac wrote: »

To someone with a clear unbiased mind

You are blatantly biased. I hope that wasn't supposed to be self-referential.

nagirrac wrote: »

the question is what is the relevance today and appropriate response to human rights abuses by the Romans in the 1st century. Should we boycott Gucci and Armani, stop drinking Pelligrini and Peroni, stop eating nutella, turn off the TV if Milan are playing? No, let's blame the Christians, a small religious sect at the time, for not opposing slavery strongly enough and hastening their crucifixions. What a ridiculous position, the shallowness of the atheist argument is mindboggling at times.

I have never in my life met an atheist who blamed Christianity for the sweatshops of the poorer nations of today. I don't believe any atheist has made that claim here.

This is the actual claim:
Religions like Christianity foster pernicious ideas in their fervent adherents because these religions preached practices, and still so in many sects, that are morally repugnant today. Phil is a poster child for this claim. His fear of viewing Paul as less than morally magnificent compels him to try to excuse the almost universally despised practice of slavery.

nagirrac wrote: »

the shallowness of the atheist argument is mindboggling

That should be a hint that maybe you aren't grokking the argument. I'm not suggesting atheists never make shallow or ridiculous arguments, I'm sure some do, but consider giving the benefit of the doubt. Incidentally, so do Christians - your statement implies it is an atheist trait. Suggestive of bias I would say.

nagirrac wrote: »

The Iraq war was completely unjustified, it was an unprovoked invasion of a sovereign country based on lies tying that country to 9/11 and the imminent threat of weapons of mass destruction.

No doubt, there were some lies. Hitchens arguement was that Iraq had acted as a safe haven for high-level terrorists, was a rogue state rife with human rights abuses, had already used WMDs twice against it's own people and had numerous times attempted to secure weapons and materials, including uranium, in violation of UN sanctions. He argued that given Saddam's history of deceiving investigators, it would have been an insane risk to just take his word for it. He was also of the opinion that we should have invaded years before, 9/11 not withstanding.

Personally, I don't really agree with him here, but he certainly has a case.

nagirrac wrote: »

A significant percentage of the population of the US and their allies were misled into war by lying politicians. For Hitchens to join in this lie and maintain the lie long after most people had recognized it as such is inexcusable. Sorry, no merit involved whatsoever.

His argument was and continued to be that Saddam had shown his intent to acquire these weapons, taking the risk that he didn't wasn't sensible. He also argued that even without WMD's Iraq was a problem that needed to be solved in any case. I think you would have to be intent on being uncharitable to deem this lying.
While you are under no obligation to agree with his assessment, there is some onus on you to consider his track record when ascribing motivation. Do you think, his historical positions on things warrants your interpretation of his motivations on Iraq?

Just out of curiousity. What exactly do you think his motivations were. Lets say he was lying.

Why was he lying?

nagirrac wrote: »

I fully agree Israel has the right to defend itself against aggression and support that right. However, this does not give it the right to treat an ethnic group living within its own borders as sub-human, as it has since the formation of the state.

Find me one person, I'd be particularly interested in a quote from Harris, who maintains the position that Israel does have that right. Harris isn't trying to make the claim that Israel is innocent of all wrong-doing, he is pointing out that Israelis are under a considerable pressure, pressure ignored in west. They have acted with restraint given their capabilities and the declared intentions of their neighbours to destroy them. He is arguing that the typical western liberal portrayal of the conflict is simplistic and biased.

nagirrac wrote: »

History shows over and over if you deny basic human rights to a group of people based on their ethnicity, race, whatever, they will eventually resort to violence.

No doubt. Threaten a people with genocide and they react to that too.

What do you make of this for instance?

From an article where Harris is discussing the Israel-Palestine conflict

Their [Palestinian] calculated attacks upon Jews in the 1930s and 1940s led to the death of hundreds of the thousands of European Jews who would otherwise have been permitted to immigrate by the British. This result does not appear to have been inadvertent. Hajj Amin al-Husseini, the grand mufti of Jerusalem and the leader of the Palestinians throughout the war years, served as an adviser to the Nazis on the Jewish question, was given a personal tour of Auschwitz by Heinrich Himmler, and aspired to open his own death camp for the Jews in Palestine once the Germans had won the war. These activities were well publicized and merely increased his popularity in the Arab world when, as a war criminar sought after by the Allies, he was given Asylum in Egypt. As recently as 2002, Yasser Arafat, the head of the Palestinian Authority, referred to Husseini as a "Hero."

I don't condone Israel's treatment of Palestine; I don't think Harris is trying to condone the excesses either. He is trying to put the conflict in context and is critical of how the media ignores the anti-Semitic aspect to the conflict. He suggests also, and I would have to agree, that were the tables turned and the Muslim nations surrounding Israel were militarily superior, the Jews would not be treated with anything like the restraint Israel has shown. This doesn’t vindicate their wrong-doing but it renders it a little less morally black and white. The Israelis are not the prototypical bad guys and the Palastinians are not the prototypical good guys. The plight of the Palestinians is something we in the west should be trying to alleviate. The Israelis are doing a lot wrong. The Palestinians commit acts or random violence against civilian targets. We should be trying to stop all of this. I don't have much hope for that though. The religious aspect to the conflict makes it damn near intractable. Would you disagree with that latter statement?

nagirrac wrote: »

Northern Ireland is the perfect example, and there you see the same moral selectivity problem expressed by a large percentage of the population of the Republic of Ireland. The armchair moral police who were outraged at human rights violations around the world, yet oblivious to the abuses 50 miles north of them. The same mind set that calls those that eventually said enough is enough and fought back as "dregs of society". The dregs of society are those that maintained an apartheid state for 50 years, defended it by violence against its own citizens, and those that supported them.

In my experience the IRA enjoyed considerable support in the south, up until they started targeting civilians. Even then, I never met anyone who didn't think the apartheid that went on in the north was not an outrage.

You seemed to excusing the IRA there, are you here making an arguement that deliberately murdering civilians is an appropriate moral action? Doesn't seem in keeping with your positions in general. Perhaps you are more able to see nuance when it is closer to home.

By the by, there have been arguments made, and some of them have considerable merit, that terrorism of this sort my be at least to some extent justified. I'm not personally convinced by them but neither do I think their proponents are evil people who just want to revel in slaughter.

nagirrac wrote: »

There is nothing nuanced about supporting an illegal and unjust war or defending ethnic discrimination.

I presume you mean by defending ethnic discrimination you refer to Harris' arguments with respect to racial profiling?
On that assumption:
[
It is undoubtedly distateful and while everyone agrees that most Arabs are not Islamic terrorists, most Islamic terrorists are Arab. Racial profiling has proven effective. The question then is, do we take action that has been proven to be effective but is considered disciminatory or be deliberately less effective so as not to be offensive? I can see the argument for both sides. Really not sure where I stand on it personally. I don't agree that it is racist in the usual sense, in the same way that I don't think that the FBI is being sexist or racist when it profiles a mass murderer as being white and male. Profiling is not about attributing traits to people, it is an exercise in probability and statistics.

To argue it is morally utterly black and white seems a little naive to me but having said that, I can certianly understand why you might find the idea immoral. Again though, I would urge restraint in assuming the motives of those who disagree.
]

For someone who seems to take a balck and white view in general, you apparently are more offended by possible hypocrisy than support for slavery. The atheists who are critical of Phil's position might be guilty of all kinds of hypocrisy. You can be sure of Phil's position though as he has expressed it. You still seem more concerned with what the atheist's might be thinking or doing than with what Phil is actually saying.
Let us assume for a moment that every atheist here is a complete hypocrite and privately celebrates every other human rights abuse that happens on earth or ever did happen. Are they wrong in their criticism of Phil's position on slavery?

I also see no effort on your part to excuse the perspective of atheists you find immoral by appeal to your, or others, lack of understanding of how they think. I don't believe for a second that you would consider their idosyncratic worldview as an excuse for thier apparent immorality.

JimiTime

Peregrinus wrote: »

Ah. Well, there you raise a couple of theological doozies which have troubled Christianity for the past two thousand years, and aren’t about to stop.

1. Who are we, to presume to “hold God to account” for anything?

Or, on the other hand:

2. Isn’t God ultimately accountable for everything?

These are both valid questions, but answering them (a) would take this discussion off in about fifteen other directions simultaneously, and (b) is beyond me.

Might be a good discussion though:)

Mmm. I think you’ve got a very reductive view of scripture there - a sort of “final and conclusive letter from God”. God may well have communicated unambiguous condemnations of slavery, but we - the church, the believing community, the people of God - may have failed to discern them, or to receive them, or may have done so only after the reception and canonization of scripture was complete.

I don’t think even the strictest and most fundamental simplistic biblical literalist would assert that, if it’s not explicitly condemned in scripture, it’s not condemned and it’s morally A-OK.
If that was the case, then there would be no moral issue with heroin addition or heroin trafficking, there would be no moral issue with child pornography, there would be no moral issue with nuclear weapons, there would be no moral issue with pre-marital sex, there would be no moral issue with a whole host of things which in fact raise acute moral issues.

I may have communicated poorly, but just to clarify, the above in no way represents my position. In fact, you'll see similar points to your own in my previous postings. I DO believe that implicitly, slavery was condemned. The very fact that Masters were told to treat slaves as Christ has treated them etc, I think is ending slavery amongst Christians, but from the inside, and by the masters. So its not encouraging a revolt. Like I've alluded to numerous times here, there have been many situations that God has allowed (Like Israels having a King), that he didn't actually want.

Slavery as part of God’s plan? Suffer a great evil, so that a greater good can unfold?

Thats not really what I was getting at. It really doesn't seem that the slavery talked about was seen as a 'great evil', but Paul seen it necessary to tell slaves and masters what was expected of them. This advice, ultimately, would mean something other than a master/slave relationship as I really cant see how being told to be Christ like, and telling masters to 'Do the same' could mean anything but something other than and end to slavery as we know it.

There’s a slight parallel in the “theology” that suggest that God tolerates, e.g. the Holocaust because such a great evil offers opportunities for us to practice great virtues. This is a blasphemy - a well-intentioned blasphemy, no doubt, but a blasphemy nevertheless.

I indeed agree. God can certainly bring light from darkness, but I certainly don't believe at this early point in my theological journey, that God would create the darkness. He may let man at it without his intervention though.