Deut. 12 & 13:
28 Observe and hear all these words which I command thee, that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee for ever, when thou doest that which is good and right in the sight of the LORD thy God.
29 When the LORD thy God shall cut off the nations from before thee, whither thou goest to possess them, and thou succeedest them, and dwellest in their land;
30 Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou enquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise.
31 Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God: for every abomination to the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods.
32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.
1 ¶ If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder,
2 And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;
3 Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.
4 Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him.
Anonymous | 02.27.08 - 8:38 am | #

That's the longest FIRST! I have ever seen.
.
zeno | 02.27.08 - 8:56 am | #

Sounds like JJR put all his eggs in the "atheists are smart" basket.
JACIII | Homepage | 02.27.08 - 9:04 am | #

I see that you mentioned "slavery" in regards to the Atheist debate. For the orthodox traditionalist Christians out there--slavery is not morally wrong. That conditions of the slaves in America could/should have been improved does not negate the Institution of Slavery. Slavery is an Institution that was needed in human history. To think that slavery is morally wrong harms the approach to Truth since it is not truth at all.
WLindsayWheeler | Homepage | 02.27.08 - 9:07 am | #

That would actually be a good question for Sam Harris. Why is slavery immoral?
VD | 02.27.08 - 9:10 am | #

Why is slavery immoral?

Because you cannot reach nirvana if you beat salves. And we all know it's not salvery if you do not beat them.
John Quincy Public | 02.27.08 - 9:18 am | #

"For the orthodox traditionalist Christians out there--slavery is not morally wrong."

As a Christian, I would ask how you enforce slavery without violence and threat of murder? Has this ever happened in human history

And as a Christian, can I support violence and murder?

That dummies can't read between the lines isn't my fault.

But it might depend on what is defined as "slavery." American citizens hand over most of the fruits of their labor to their "betters" under threat of violence from the State. Somehow I don't think this bothers Sam Harris...
Anonymous | 02.27.08 - 9:25 am | #

a minority of atheists who have actually read the book are saying that while I did successfully refute the arguments I attacked in the book, I must have avoided the really strong ones.

On a tangential note, don't get too impressed by the Professor, Brent. I'll show you how his points are spurious, to the extent they're even relevant at all, once he finishes. In fact, he'll discover himself how most of his points are incorrect once he reads a little farther.

I think the Professor is doing a pretty good job, actually. Better than I've seen so far, in any case. He seems very methodical.

It's certainly better than 90 percent of them out there. He is certainly is very methodical, for which I commend him, but methodical and accurate are two different things. But that you might know I blow no smoke, let me give you an example of the ease with which I will refute him. He quotes me and writes:

"I will convince you that this trio of New Atheists, this Unholy Trinity, is a collection of faux-intellectual frauds utilizing pseudo-scientific sleight of hand…

In other words, atheists claim that God does not exist, but atheists are dishonest, therefore God exists."

I never make any such argument. Nor would I, because it's a logical fallacy. Indeed, as I warned the reader, the book contains no arguments for God's existence. And as I also point out in the book, God exists or does not exist regardless of what the New Atheists or I happen to believe. A better description of my argument would be: because these specific atheist arguments are fallacious, one cannot dismiss the possibility of God's existence based upon them.

I shall, of course, rinse and repeat as needed once he completes his detailed review.
VD | 02.27.08 - 10:03 am | #

Why would anyone be surprised that "blue counties" commit more crime than "red counties"?
andy | 02.27.08 - 10:15 am | #

I see that you mentioned "slavery" in regards to the Atheist debate. For the orthodox traditionalist Christians out there--slavery is not morally wrong. That conditions of the slaves in America could/should have been improved does not negate the Institution of Slavery. Slavery is an Institution that was needed in human history. To think that slavery is morally wrong harms the approach to Truth since it is not truth at all.
WLindsayWheeler | Homepage | 02.27.08 - 9:07 am | #

I sent Vox an email about this very topic but never heard back. I'd be interested to hear his (or anyone else's) take on it. I found it curious that the Bible did not condemn slavery at any point, nor the subjugation of women (or other groups).

We obviously consider those two things to be "morally wrong" in today's western society... so if they didn't come about as a result of the Judeo-Christian moral standard (which much of the western world is based on), then how did they become such a prevalent and wide-spread standard?

Keep in mind, this is not an argument about whether they are right or wrong (although, that is probably related to the topic), but merely an inquiry into how pretty much everyone came to the conclusion that they are wrong, even though they're not based on the prevailing religious teachings of the west.
WATYF | Homepage | 02.27.08 - 10:40 am | #

Wheeler, biblical slavery and slavery practiced elsewhere were very different.
The One | 02.27.08 - 10:41 am | #

I think the Professor is doing a pretty good job, actually.

I wouldn't go that far. :o) I read through his first post, and it was incredibly weak, considering it didn't address arguments that were actually IN your book. He repeats the "therefore God must exist" fallacy several times, even though you spelled out several times that your book doesn't purport to prove any such thing.
WATYF | Homepage | 02.27.08 - 10:43 am | #

Here is a good article on slavery in the Bible: http://www.christian-thinktank.c...m/ qnoslave.html
Anonymous | 02.27.08 - 10:44 am | #

In other words, atheists claim that God does not exist, but atheists are dishonest, therefore God exists."


Hey! I noticed that right away when I read his stuff. I are getting smarter just being here.
.
zeno | 02.27.08 - 10:45 am | #

Wheeler, biblical slavery and slavery practiced elsewhere were very different.
The One | 02.27.08 - 10:41 am | #

Can you explain how so?

We know that Biblical slaves were beaten by their masters (it even lays out the way in which you should and shouldn't beat them). We know that they were bought and sold. We know that they were separated from their families.

What is the distinction to be drawn between Biblical slavery and modern slavery (which has been abolished)?
WATYF | Homepage | 02.27.08 - 10:54 am | #

"I took a read of Vox Day's book, and some of it I skimmed or skipped."

hahahahahahaha......I didn't finish entire pages or even necessarily paragraphs. Here's what I think about it.
Joss Fritz | Homepage | 02.27.08 - 10:54 am | #

Here is a good article on slavery in the Bible: http://www.christian-thinktank.c...m/ qnoslave.html
Anonymous | 02.27.08 - 10:44 am | #

oh geez... that's long. Maybe I'll make it through by lunch. :o)
.
WATYF | Homepage | 02.27.08 - 11:00 am | #

For the orthodox traditionalist Christians out there--slavery is not morally wrong.
WLindsayWheeler | Homepage | 02.27.08 - 9:07 am | #

Perhaps not (if you approach it as a contract matter), but sex slavery is most certainly wrong.

The thing that grates most folks who disagree with slavery in general are:(1) the means by which slaves are/were acquired: by kidnapping, or by sale by a person who has no right to sell (i.e. tribal chieftains); and (2) the often-horrible conditions.

YOU try regulating the treatment and handling of slaves.
Mrs. Pilgrim | Homepage | 02.27.08 - 11:13 am | #

It's partly amusing and partly frustrating that on the one hand, you've got a lot of atheists bleating that there's no way TIA could possibly refute the bestest minds of the brights so it must be nothing but strawman construction, while on the other, a minority of atheists who have actually read the book are saying that while I did successfully refute the arguments I attacked in the book, I must have avoided the really strong ones. But I attacked every major argument made in those books, as well as a dozens of minor ones, so I have no idea where these brilliant arguments that Dawkins, Harris and company have made are supposed to be found, because they certainly aren't found anywhere in their books.


Its called denial...
Tom B. | Homepage | 02.27.08 - 11:28 am | #

For the orthodox traditionalist Christians out there--slavery is not morally wrong.

Bullshit. Tell me how you can enslave your brother or sister with whom you share the body of the Christ.
Larry | Homepage | 02.27.08 - 11:30 am | #

What is the distinction to be drawn between Biblical slavery and modern slavery (which has been abolished)?
WATYF | Homepage | 02.27.08 - 10:54 am | #

Your choice of words says a lot. I'm inclined to think you are arguing to win instead of discussing facts. Beaten? Perhaps chastised would be the correct word. The bible also instructs, spare the rod etc, etc. Your moral equivalent does not consume the rule. Try again, oh and where has slavery been abolished? Some countries and others NOT! Would you believe there are currently slaves in the US?
HongKongCharlie | 02.27.08 - 11:30 am | #

Bullshit. Tell me how you can enslave your brother or sister with whom you share the body of the Christ.
Larry | Homepage | 02.27.08 - 11:30 am | #

Ahh, how about the heathens among us. Would it be okay to enslave them? And why not?
HongKongCharlie | 02.27.08 - 11:32 am | #

Logical disconnect? I'm guilty or the practice time to time. meh
HongKongCharlie | 02.27.08 - 11:33 am | #

For the orthodox traditionalist Christians out there--slavery is not morally wrong.

Bullshit. Tell me how you can enslave your brother or sister with whom you share the body of the Christ.
Larry | Homepage | 02.27.08 - 11:30 am | #

The NT talks specifically about Christians who have other Christians as masters. Obviously, it is possible (and wasn't condemned in the Bible).
.
WATYF | Homepage | 02.27.08 - 11:46 am | #

That's too funny. He's suspicious about cherry picking? Why doesn't he go be suspicious about the data, like the featured Trio should've done being supposed professionals and all?

I'm suspicious that their suspicion is suspect.
superninja | 02.27.08 - 11:51 am | #

Your choice of words says a lot. I'm inclined to think you are arguing to win instead of discussing facts.

I would appreciate it if people would actually address the argument that I'm putting forth, instead of only addressing what they think I might be implying based on the impression they're getting from which words they think I used to imply something or other.


Beaten? Perhaps chastised would be the correct word.


No, beaten is the proper word. Ex 21:20-21 talks specifically about if you beat your slave with a rod and he dies, you're in trouble, but if you beat him and he recovers after a day or so, you're OK (since the slave is your property). I'm not making this up. It's all in there.


Try again, oh and where has slavery been abolished?

It has been made illegal in the western industrialized world. My question is, if it's not condemned in the Judeo-Christian beliefs upon which the western world is based, then why has it been condemned, uniformly, by the western world. Yes, there are pockets of slavery still going on, but that has no bearing on what I'm asking.
.
WATYF | Homepage | 02.27.08 - 11:51 am | #

That's too funny. He's suspicious about cherry picking? Why doesn't he go be suspicious about the data, like the featured Trio should've done being supposed professionals and all?

I'm suspicious that their suspicion is suspect.
superninja | 02.27.08 - 11:51 am | #

He's just reacting with a weak argument. That's pretty common. He sees his worldview being crushed by what appears to be solid evidence, so he immediately assumes that there must be "more to the story" that validates his worldview while at the same time allowing for the dismissal of the UnHoly Trinity's arguments.

This is common to many groups, though, not just the New Atheists.
WATYF | Homepage | 02.27.08 - 11:56 am | #

The NT talks specifically about Christians who have other Christians as masters. Obviously, it is possible (and wasn't condemned in the Bible).

And you didn't answer my question. How can you enslave someone with whom you share the body of Christ? Someone whom you should refer to as a brother or sister? That imperfect people were Christians during the time the New Testament was being written is obvious, this does not make their practices moral or something to emulate.

Ahh, how about the heathens among us. Would it be okay to enslave them? And why not?

No, it would not be OK to enslave them, either. For one thing it would interfere in evangelism, for another, even if you don't share the Eucharist with them, you still share the Imago Dei. You would enslave God's image bearer?
Larry | Homepage | 02.27.08 - 11:56 am | #

Ahh, how about the heathens among us. Would it be okay to enslave them? And why not?
HongKongCharlie | 02.27.08 - 11:32 am | #

"Love thy neighbor as thyself"--the Second Great Commandment.

I can't think of too many people who would want to be forcibly enslaved. (Now, as I said, contracting one's services is another matter entirely, but...)
Mrs. Pilgrim | Homepage | 02.27.08 - 12:00 pm | #

No, beaten is the proper word. Ex 21:20-21 talks specifically about if you beat your slave with a rod and he dies, you're in trouble, but if you beat him and he recovers after a day or so, you're OK (since the slave is your property). I'm not making this up. It's all in there.
WATYF | Homepage | 02.27.08 - 11:51 am | #

The sticky question now is whether this is applicable anymore. For instance, we're not expected to execute gays these days...And we're not permitted to divorce at will, either.
Mrs. Pilgrim | Homepage | 02.27.08 - 12:02 pm | #

And you didn't answer my question. How can you enslave someone with whom you share the body of Christ?

I'm not sure what you mean? "How can you"? By being in a country whose laws allow slavery, being a Christian, and purchasing another Christian as a slave. If you're asking "how can a Christian morally justify that?", then that's my point... the Bible never morally condemns it, so on what basis do Christians morally condemn it. I'm asking here....


That imperfect people were Christians during the time the New Testament was being written is obvious, this does not make their practices moral or something to emulate.

But this isn't about imperfect people existing in Biblical times... that's a given. This is about the Bible specifically saying that Christian slaves should submit to their masters (Christian or otherwise). We're not talking about some vague moral ambiguity that was going on during NT times but never really addressed.
.
WATYF | Homepage | 02.27.08 - 12:02 pm | #

The sticky question now is whether this is applicable anymore. For instance, we're not expected to execute gays these days...And we're not permitted to divorce at will, either.
Mrs. Pilgrim | Homepage | 02.27.08 - 12:02 pm | #

Well yes... of course it isn't applicable. It's part of the old covenant. But that's not the question. My question is not "Should we beat our slaves today". My questions is, since the Bible condones slavery and even lays out how it should be done... and since the NT does the same thing... on what basis do modern Christians condemn slavery?

This is a question.
WATYF | Homepage | 02.27.08 - 12:06 pm | #

Mrs. P: The sticky question now is whether this is applicable anymore.

That brings up the question of Levitical law and Christianity, something I've never quite been clear on. Care to draw a line -- or erase it -- for me?

WATYF: It has been made illegal in the western industrialized world.

Just to stir the hornet's nest let me put forward that it likely came, in part, from cultural mingling with the germanic tribes.
John Quincy Public | 02.27.08 - 12:07 pm | #

If you're asking "how can a Christian morally justify that?", then that's my point... the Bible never morally condemns it, so on what basis do Christians morally condemn it. I'm asking here....

I am morally condemning it because if it is wrong to enslave your brother with whom you share parents, how much more wrong is it to enslave someone with whom you share the body of Christ? That someone would even consider buying and selling their brothers and sisters and try to support this from the Bible is simply astounding to me. You would buy and sell, as you would a piece of meat in the market place, someone who bears the image of your God. You would buy and sell someone for whom Christ died? Incredible.

I would also point out that if you think slavery is OK, by the Golden Rule you should sell yourself into slavery. If you are not willing to do that, do not do it to others or allow others to do it.
Larry | Homepage | 02.27.08 - 12:10 pm | #

Mrs. P: The sticky question now is whether this is applicable anymore.

That brings up the question of Levitical law and Christianity, something I've never quite been clear on. Care to draw a line -- or erase it -- for me?

Levitical law was fulfilled by the death of Christ so that no Christian would have to subject themselves to it any more. In fact, Paul said that any Christian who continues to submit to the Levitical law (now that Jesus had fulfilled it, and all that) was willingly putting themselves under a curse (Gal 3). He points to the fact that the reconciliation of man to God is done by faith, as was established through Abraham before the law was even created.

That's the short answer. There's a lot more to it than that, obviously.
WATYF | Homepage | 02.27.08 - 12:13 pm | #

WATYF: Gal 3 for a start then? Gracias.
John Quincy Public | 02.27.08 - 12:17 pm | #

Larry, here is a great example - if you are wealthy and a poor man comes to you who is destitute and is in need of work and a roof over their head and wants to be your bond servant for life.

That is not likely to happen in America right now, but it happens in other parts of the world.

Not to mention, the American government has MANY bond-servants. They just like to pretend otherwise.
superninja | 02.27.08 - 12:22 pm | #

Also, some people are not capable of being free, and are confused about what freedom is. Part of being a Christian is to show them how this is possible, and it is only truly possible under Jesus Christ. In America, Christians have been neglectful in this arena, adopting non-Christian ideas of freedom and not discipling.
superninja | 02.27.08 - 12:27 pm | #

Someone asked the question about the discipline for slaves. Of Course. Even in the military, flogging was a proper punishment. So is the death penalty.

If one wants to attack the institution of slavery because someone is disciplined---the institituion of the military is much much worse. No slave recieves the death penalty for running away---but a Free military man is. A slave is more important than a soldier. So on the basis of discipline there is NO grounds to attack or diminish slavery just because of the discipline necessary to uphold the institution.

---------------------

Nowhere in the Bible is slavery condemned--Old or New. Church Councils have upheld the institution and actually have anathemitized those that sought its dissolution. So all those "republican abolitionist Christians" are anathematized, are Heretics.

------------------------

There is no difference between "Hebrew slavery" and other types of slavery. Let's get that misonomer out of here. Hebrews had TWO types, involuntary servitude of other Hebrews for a Duration---And Foreigner slavery that was forever. Make sure of that distinction. There are TWO types of institutions in the OT. The New Testament, living under the rules of Roman slavery---did NOT condemn it.

----------------------

Finally, all Christians who condemn slavery as immoral---condemn God who has Slaves----called Angels. Lucifer ran a Slave rebellion. Angels are the ministers and servants of God. They have no free will. They must serve God. That is why they are created.

In order for freedom to exist--slavery must be there as a counterpart. Likewise in the Family. The Man is Free---the woman is a helpmate to the Man. This is why J.S. Mills wrote the book The Subjection of Women in order to break this Natural Order. Freedom rests in the Male---Not in the Female. As God is Male and Free, The Angels take on the Slavery part.
WLindsayWheeler | Homepage | 02.27.08 - 12:28 pm | #

Larry, here is a great example - if you are wealthy and a poor man comes to you who is destitute and is in need of work and a roof over their head and wants to be your bond servant for life.

Not a great example. Jesus would say to pay off the man's debt, lend, without hope of repayment. Jesus spoke often about just such things, but we tend to spiritualize it, think that he was talking about sin, rather than real debt.
Larry | Homepage | 02.27.08 - 12:28 pm | #

I am morally condemning it because if it is wrong to enslave your brother with whom you share parents, how much more wrong is it to enslave someone with whom you share the body of Christ?

This is just a claim. Where is the Biblical basis? Where does it say that it's morally wrong to do these things?


That someone would even consider buying and selling their brothers and sisters and try to support this from the Bible is simply astounding to me.

You have my argument backwards. I am not saying that the Bible tells us to buy and sell our brothers and sisters. I am saying that we... in general... modern western society... condemn slavery almost unanimously. I would like to know the Biblical basis for this condemnation.


You would buy and sell, as you would a piece of meat in the market place, someone who bears the image of your God. You would buy and sell someone for whom Christ died? Incredible.

No... I personally wouldn't. But even if I would, what is the Biblical imperative for me not to do that? You are saying things that you believe have a "self-evident" morally... i.e. you say, "Who would DOOO such a thing???". This is a weak moral argument, and is exactly why atheists have no basis for their moral arguments. They simply say things with the assumption that the listeners will agree that it's immoral because... well... it JUST IS!!! Their whole point is, "It sounds immoral, doesn't it... that must make it so".

But the question is not whether or not my "gut" tells me that it's wrong. My gut tells me that slavery is wrong. My gut feeling, however, is irrelevant. What is the Biblical reason not to own slaves?


I would also point out that if you think slavery is OK, by the Golden Rule you should sell yourself into slavery. If you are not willing to do that, do not do it to others or allow others to do it.
Larry | Homepage | 02.27.08 - 12:10 pm | #

OK... hey... we finally got something Biblical that you believe is a basis for not owning slaves. That wasn't so hard, now was it? :o)

Alright... so... a few questions.

1) What do you consider the "Golden Rule" (i.e. cite the scripture).

2) Vox points out in TIA, quite accurately, that the Golden rule alone can not be used as a moral model, since it allows those who would be willing to have something done to themselves to do things to others that the others wouldn't want done to themselves. Could this logical loophole be applied to slavery?

3) If slavery is wrong according to the Golden Rule (a fixed Biblical principle), then was the apostle Paul wrong to tell Christian slaves that they should submit to the Christian masters, or to say that Christian masters should treat their slaves well (instead of saying that Christian masters should release their slaves outright).
.
WATYF | Homepage | 02.27.08 - 12:30 pm | #

WATYF: Gal 3 for a start then? Gracias.
John Quincy Public | 02.27.08 - 12:17 pm | #

Yeah... it can be rather confusing, though. You really have to have the historical background of Abraham and his covenant, and then the covenant of the law and then the new covenant (Christ) and blah blah blah.
.
WATYF | Homepage | 02.27.08 - 12:32 pm | #

Due to Debts, One Hebrew could enslave another until the debt was paid. The OT does counsel that for slaves, they could seize them from non-Hebrew countries round-about them. All the Patriarchs of the Hebrews had slaves.

Human civilization is not possible without slavery. Condemn slavery and one condemns civilization.

Slavery is only conscription of weaker humans in order to fulfill labor functions that one single family could not do. Classical civilization would be nowhere without slavery. Slavery like the Military is just an institution.
WLindsayWheeler | Homepage | 02.27.08 - 12:34 pm | #

Someone asked the question about the discipline for slaves. Of Course. Even in the military, flogging was a proper punishment. So is the death penalty.

If one wants to attack the institution of slavery because someone is disciplined---the institituion of the military is much much worse. No slave recieves the death penalty for running away---but a Free military man is. A slave is more important than a soldier. So on the basis of discipline there is NO grounds to attack or diminish slavery just because of the discipline necessary to uphold the institution.

Nowhere in the Bible is slavery condemned--Old or New. Church Councils have upheld the institution and actually have anathemitized those that sought its dissolution. So all those "republican abolitionist Christians" are anathematized, are Heretics.

There is no difference between "Hebrew slavery" and other types of slavery. Let's get that misonomer out of here. Hebrews had TWO types, involuntary servitude of other Hebrews for a Duration---And Foreigner slavery that was forever. Make sure of that distinction. There are TWO types of institutions in the OT. The New Testament, living under the rules of Roman slavery---did NOT condemn it.

Finally, all Christians who condemn slavery as immoral---condemn God who has Slaves----called Angels. Lucifer ran a Slave rebellion. Angels are the ministers and servants of God. They have no free will. They must serve God. That is why they are created.

In order for freedom to exist--slavery must be there as a counterpart. Likewise in the Family. The Man is Free---the woman is a helpmate to the Man. This is why J.S. Mills wrote the book The Subjection of Women in order to break this Natural Order. Freedom rests in the Male---Not in the Female. As God is Male and Free, The Angels take on the Slavery part.
WLindsayWheeler | Homepage | 02.27.08 - 12:28 pm | #



wow... all very interesting arguments. I would agree that discipline does not make a thing "immoral". And I think the comparison to the military is quite provocative (and, at first glance, logically sound).
.
WATYF | Homepage | 02.27.08 - 12:39 pm | #

So it looks like Wheeler is actually making the case for slavery.

What other arguments could one come up with in support of that?

Would the "debtor slaves" of Roman times be more beneficial today than the current system of people running up debt so large that they could never possibly repay it and living in "servitude" (basically) to the mountain of debt upon them (or else declaring bankruptcy and essentially stealing tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of dollars from their debtors)?


...an interesting thing to ponder.

.
WATYF | Homepage | 02.27.08 - 12:44 pm | #

Wheeler is forever making arguments in favor of lifelong servitude to the "chosen special few." Keep in mind that he believes that being born into a particular family makes you superior.

And that THIS IS SPARTAAAAAAAAAA!
Mrs. Pilgrim | Homepage | 02.27.08 - 12:52 pm | #

::kicks Mrs. P down the well::
John Quincy Public | 02.27.08 - 12:55 pm | #

In Christendom, slavery for the most part morphed into Serfdom. Serfs are very important. Let us remember that most of Classical civilization and Christendom was Agricultural. Agriculture and Agrarianism requires slavery/serfdom. They are necessary institutions. Most modern people are divorced from Nature and reality and have no clue on how hard it is to live in an Agrarian society. The Amish get around this by the multiplicity of children and the close cooperation between families to get work done.

Temporary servitude for debtors is also possible.

We have to face and live in reality. Most of what goes on today is divorced from reality, hard cold facts and many humans don't want to face reality.

Abolitionism is progressive. Many conservatives take pride in abolishing slavery---just goes to show that they are faux conservatives. One can mark out a true conservative on what his stance is on slavery.

The definition of Righteousness:

"...to be ready to distribute according to desert, and to preserve ancestral customs and institutions and the established laws, and to tell the truth when interest is at stake."

"Institution of slavery is not morally wrong. "

In industrial societies, how are slaves kept as slaves?

Answer: Violence, murder and threats of violence/murder.

Are these morally wrong or not?
Anonymous | 02.27.08 - 12:59 pm | #

"Love thy neighbor as thyself"--the Second Great Commandment.

I can't think of too many people who would want to be forcibly enslaved. (Now, as I said, contracting one's services is another matter entirely, but...)
Mrs. Pilgrim

Am I on crack or doesn't it read "Love thy neighbor as I (that "I" being Jesus) would love them"?

If that's your standard, it's hard to say "neighbor" doesn't include your slaves as well as strangers you stumble over in Samaria.
Michael Maier | 02.27.08 - 1:07 pm | #

I can't think of too many people who would want to be forcibly enslaved. (Now, as I said, contracting one's services is another matter entirely, but...)

Then you're not talking about slavery. We differentiate between rape and sex solely as a matter of volition. Slavery refers to the state of being, not the manner of reaching that state.
VD | 02.27.08 - 1:11 pm | #

Violence? Morally wrong? Who said this?

When a carpenter goes out to the forest and chops down a tree is that violence? You betcha.

When a Farmer goes out and takes a sickle to the wheat is that violence?
You betcha.

When the vinter makes wine and CRUSHES the grape is that violence? You betcha.

Do you not realize that the production of 90% of all food is done by VIOLENCE. One can not create Food---which is a necessity---without Violence.

Is not Nature Violent? How could the cosmos, the stars and this earth be where it is today without Violence.

Violence seems some 80% of the time to be Beneficial. How can Violence be instrinsically immoral?

When a Father disciplines a child, Violence?

What is happening is that the Left has an agenda and Makes "discipline" into a bad thing by calling it "violence". Discipline is a very good thing. But the Left hates Discipline, to it calls it another name and so brings upon it approbation. Discipline requires Violence. Not all Violence is Discipline but Discipline requires Violence and this many people don't discern. What is happening is that there are no more distinctions so that Discipline which is now called Violence is in disrepute in order to kill it.

Violence and Discipline is NORMAL. Morality is only concerned with Justice and the Telos of human action. Violence per se is not Immoral.
WLindsayWheeler | Homepage | 02.27.08 - 1:13 pm | #

A tree is not made in God's image. Neither is a grape. Or food.

Comparing bond servitude in an agricultural civilization with chattel slavery in an industrial one is sheer ignorance of history or economics.

There is nothing wrong with selling oneself as a servant in order to eat. You are correct that this often is the only choice in an agricultural civilization, and this is what the Bible is talking about.

This is different than using the threat of murder to hold someone hostage.
Anonymous | 02.27.08 - 1:20 pm | #

This is different than using the threat of murder to hold someone hostage.
Anonymous | 02.27.08 - 1:20 pm |

Is not Threats to keep a man from desertion in the Army? When men escaped from the French Foreign Legion--upon capture--they were put to death. So Anonymous--if you hold the same standards--do you not call for the abolishing of the Military? How can one have a Military in the Industrial age?

"Using the threat of Murder", is that not Discipline? Are we not to hold Discipline as a High Moral Ideal?

If a Man is a slave, then he must carry out his duty as a slave. He can petition his master but if his master refuses--he must remain a slave. The Union, Abraham Lincoln, had NO right to abrogate the Private Property of the South by Freeing the slaves. Abraham Lincoln STOLE private Property and if Abraham Lincoln is the flagstar of the Republican Party--then it is hypocritical and progressive---not conservative. Abraham Lincoln abrogated the Property rights of Southern citizens.

Did not God have authority to quell Lucifer's rebellion? Did not God have to use Violence in order to restore Order? Once a man is a slave---he is a slave.

And this goes to the heart of the Atheist problem---Because God does HAVE "the threat of murder to hold someone hostage" and that is called H-E-L-L. This is what the Atheist hates, that God holds over his head the possibility of Discipline over him. The Atheist is never totally Free. No One is. We are all hostages to the Moral Law, to the Good. We can not abrogate that and live. And Hell is Violence, where the worm dieth not and the flame never quencheth.

Nature in a sense is that also. Nature does have the Threat of Murder to hold people to her laws. Counter the Laws of Nature---Nature kills you. Nature has NO compunction. Break the laws of Nature--Nature kills you with violence---with murder. How many farmers are killed every year on the farm? Plenty.

The military hold you to a contract, the Roman Military was 20 years, the American military 8 years. In Switzerland and in Greece, it is the Draft. The draft is a form of involuntary servitude. If the Instituion of slavery is wrong so is the Draft. The Draft is NOT morally wrong---and neither is Slavery.
WLindsayWheeler | Homepage | 02.27.08 - 1:34 pm | #

Not a great example. Jesus would say to pay off the man's debt, lend, without hope of repayment. Jesus spoke often about just such things, but we tend to spiritualize it, think that he was talking about sin, rather than real debt.

So you should give a loan to someone who owns no land and is destitute in hopes that they will do what exactly with it?
superninja | 02.27.08 - 1:40 pm | #

Comparing bond servitude in an agricultural civilization with chattel slavery in an industrial one is sheer ignorance of history or economics.

This is exactly the distinction we are talking about here.
superninja | 02.27.08 - 1:43 pm | #

Involuntary servitude is a form of captivity.
superninja | 02.27.08 - 1:44 pm | #

"Is not Threats to keep a man from desertion in the Army? "

Again, you are using stupid abstractions devoid of context. In a voluntary military, a person chooses to enlist. He or she is an adult. They consent to the choices they make, which might include death.

However, the draft is slavery, and uses threats of violence.

Threatening violence against my neighbor is not the command of Christ. The flip-side of the commandment against murder is the right to self-defense. The slaveholders in the South were guilty of murder, attempted murder and kidnapping and could be slain by anyone (including Union troops) as part of God's Word in self-defense.

This is not an endorsement of Lincoln, but a condemnation of the slaveholder, who were outlaws in both a free nation and in God's Creation.

And as a Christian, I don't worship Nature. Apparently you do.
Anonymous | 02.27.08 - 1:57 pm | #

That's why it is a part of the world system and its rulers and not the Kingdom of God.
superninja | 02.27.08 - 2:00 pm | #

The slaveholders in the South were guilty of murder, attempted murder and kidnapping and could be slain by anyone (including Union troops) as part of God's Word in self-defense.

Daft bastard. There were slaves in the north also. And while there were certainly excesses by all points of the compass involved: Slaves were expensive property that were, by and large, well maintained.

You're going to have to dig deeper than "He has a Ferrari! The greenhouse polluter! Kill him for self defense!" style arguments to make that turd stick to the wall.
John Quincy Public | 02.27.08 - 2:04 pm | #

Apparently Anonymous, America was built by Slaves. It was a Slave Society. It was the Slave society that gave leisure to Thomas Jefferson and George Washington so that they could attend meetings. If it wasn't any slavery--there would have been no revolution for the most part. Slavery leds to leisure.

Your thought anonymous is monomanical and is anti-Western. Western thought is not 'sola scriptura' but Western Thought is based on Holy Tradition (Scripture and Tradition, Roman Catholic style) and the Natural Law. The two together. Besides if you are "sola Scriptura" I fail to see where Discipline is murder. Many good Christians were slave owners. The Civil War was Unjust and immoral. There is NO excuse for killing slave owners just because they owned slaves---NONE. There is NO moral code anywhere, Babylonian, Roman, Christian, Greek, Christendom that teaches that Slave owners are killed for owning slaves NONE. You are very afar off Anonymous.
WLindsayWheeler | Homepage | 02.27.08 - 2:08 pm | #

OK fine. The slaveholders in the North were also guilty and could have been morally slain, by anyone, in self-defense.

Well-maintained...is that would YOU would say if I whipped your back? Well, you probably would...
Anonymous | 02.27.08 - 2:08 pm | #

"America was built by Slaves."

No, you stupid shit. It was built upon institutions founded in liberty.

Moral failure by some Christians is not proof of the morality of slavery. I know good Christians through a prison ministry, Christians who have done awful.

And I didn't say I supported the Civil War, you moron. I said that slaveholders were outlaws and could be slain in self-defense, as is any other murderer or tyrant. Try fucking reading.
Anonymous | 02.27.08 - 2:14 pm | #

It was built upon institutions founded in liberty.

Then apparently slavery is founded in liberty. You don't have to like history but you can't ignore it.

Well-maintained...is that would YOU would say if I whipped your back?

Nevermind. Apparently you can. Do some more reading on things around the time of the Civil War; modern myths depart quite a bit from the written bits of history.
John Quincy Public | 02.27.08 - 2:23 pm | #

Anon,
Your dumber than a damn bag o' rocks on this deal. And no, I'm not gonna take time to explain it. I gotta go back to work. I'll check up on later.
John Mosby | 02.27.08 - 2:32 pm | #

America was built upon institutions founded in liberty under certain conditions and for a certain type of people.
superninja | 02.27.08 - 3:12 pm | #

The military hold you to a contract, the Roman Military was 20 years, the American military 8 years. In Switzerland and in Greece, it is the Draft. The draft is a form of involuntary servitude. If the Instituion of slavery is wrong so is the Draft. The Draft is NOT morally wrong---and neither is Slavery.
WLindsayWheeler

The Hell the draft ain't morally wrong. It's taking a "free" man and forcing him to fight and/or die. Piss on that. If you can't convince your country of free men as to the rightness of your cause, you don't deserve to have men at your disposal.

And screw contracts. You show up to fight of your own volition, you leave the same way. Again, if you can't keep your army going, you have problems.

This country would have NO problems getting volunteers to fight a true invasion. The only reason the United States have needed a draft is because they (sic) pick fights that ain't our business and the population knows it.

Piss on the draft and anyone that supports it.

Come to think of it... have (sic) the United States EVER been invaded? What was the last legit war we even fought that we didn't instigate?

Hmmmmm... the War of 1812? I'll have to think about that a little harder.
Michael Maier | 02.27.08 - 3:29 pm | #

Vox, you must admit it. Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, Onfray, and Dennett are clearly their side's third string. You're going to have to take on the Big Boys if you want to gain any credibility. (Now if we can just locate them...)
duckman | Homepage | 02.27.08 - 5:09 pm | #

Am I on crack or doesn't it read "Love thy neighbor as I (that "I" being Jesus) would love them"?
Michael Maier | 02.27.08 - 1:07 pm | #

No, you're just confusing Matthew 2:39-40 with John 15:12.
Mrs. Pilgrim | Homepage | 02.27.08 - 5:14 pm | #

Looks like HaloScan ate my first comment of this session...

I quoted Wheeler's quote: "...to be ready to distribute according to desert, and to preserve ancestral customs and institutions and the established laws, and to tell the truth when interest is at stake."

And analyzed his notion of righteousness as permitting:

(1) the seizure of personal property by the government for redistribution;
(2) the continuation of God-defying heathen rituals; and
(3) lying at will as long as you figure nobody will get hurt.
Mrs. Pilgrim | Homepage | 02.27.08 - 5:19 pm | #

Slavery is only conscription of weaker humans in order to fulfill labor functions that one single family could not do. Classical civilization would be nowhere without slavery.
WLindsayWheeler | Homepage | 02.27.08 - 12:34 pm

Now we have the internal combustion engine and we don't need slavery. I guess you just want slavery for slavery's sake. Its Tradition ya know.
equus pallidus | Homepage | 02.27.08 - 5:29 pm | #

Mr. Maier, Switzerland is a Christian Country and Greece is an Eastern Orthodox Country. No religious authority EVER has come out against the Draft in those countries--and who are you? The Draft is perfectly legal, Moral and righteous.

Even your "Christian" England conscripted men off the streets to serve in the English Christian Navy. Severe individualism Mr. Maier IS a vice and an error.

In order to protect the society in general, the State can Coerce its citizens into its defence. You must serve for the greater good. What you preach Mr. Maier is that the individual is greater than the State and it is not. The Greater good of the Whole is what is important. The individual is sacrificed for the well-being of the whole. The Whole must live on, the individual can be shed just like cells are shed everyday by the human body.

Mr. Maier you may live in lu-lu land, in the land of plenty and unreality, but Switzerland and Greece need all hands on deck in order to survive. Individualism has no place in these two countries in time of war for they are too small. They NEED every available man to fight. That is what Reality teaches.

Competent and legal authority is all it takes. We are duty bound as Christians to obey authority. Anarchism and rebellion are not Christian virtues---Obedience is a Christian virtue. Virtue Mr Maier is what is important.
WLindsayWheeler | Homepage | 02.27.08 - 5:32 pm | #

"Now we have the internal combustion engine and we don't need slavery. I guess you just want slavery for slavery's sake." EQ

Christianity is about the Truth. In order to arrive at Truth, every premise must be right. Even though we don't need slavery today---it is very very wrong to say that Slavery is Immoral, that it is intrinsically wrong.

What happens is that many people both conservative, Catholic, Liberal, Leftists, Rightists then build other moral arguments on top of this supposed dictum that slavery is wrong and it it is FAULTY reasoning. Reasoning requires True Premises. The statement that "Slavery is morally wrong" is misleading, illogical, unsound, unfounded, without foundation, and leads to erroneous conclusions about other things.

"Slavery is morally wrong" leads one to make false assumptions about God as well and leads to a faulty understanding of Reality and how it works. Reality is not a human construct. Humans live UNDER reality, under Nature. Certain things have to be done in order that other things have to be done. The world is not based on "Playing Nice". There is NO such thing.

We may not care to engage in slavery but that in no way makes it immoral or wrong.
WLindsayWheeler | Homepage | 02.27.08 - 5:48 pm | #

Competent and legal authority is all it takes. We are duty bound as Christians to obey authority. Anarchism and rebellion are not Christian virtues---Obedience is a Christian virtue. Virtue Mr Maier is what is important.
WLindsayWheeler | Homepage | 02.27.08 - 5:32 pm

"Virtue"? Forcing the citizenry to traveling to foreign lands and murder their citizens under false pretense?

That's virtue.

Jesus Christ would hardly endorse supporting such a regime. You're a sad, pathetic moron that misses everything He said about love if you think any draft would meet his approval.
Michael Maier | Homepage | 02.27.08 - 5:54 pm | #

Dang it...

"Virtue"? Forcing the citizenry to travel to foreign lands and murder their citizens under false pretense?

That's virtue?
Michael Maier | Homepage | 02.27.08 - 5:55 pm | #

That's virtue?

For certain values of virtue. Wa's yer poignant?
John Quincy Public | 02.27.08 - 5:59 pm | #

In order to protect the society in general, the State can Coerce its citizens into its defence.
WLindsayWheeler | Homepage | 02.27.08 - 5:32 pm | #

And here's where your "reasoning" breaks down, Wheeler: In the U.S., at least theoretically, the people ARE the State. The guys in Washington are OUR servants, not we theirs. (Again, theoretically.)

Congressmen are not kings, however much they would like to be. They still require our approval to keep their jobs.
Mrs. Pilgrim | Homepage | 02.27.08 - 6:16 pm | #

Competent and legal authority is all it takes. We are duty bound as Christians to obey authority. Anarchism and rebellion are not Christian virtues---Obedience is a Christian virtue.
WLindsayWheeler | Homepage | 02.27.08 - 5:32 pm | #

Now is when I'm going to bust out that you said John Paul II was an incompetent fool.

He was YOUR "competent and legal authority." Start being obedient and submitted, or else burn on the very pyre you tried to build for others.
Mrs. Pilgrim | Homepage | 02.27.08 - 6:19 pm | #

or else burn on the very pyre you tried to build for others.

He's a flamer? An evangelizing flamer? How ghey.
John Quincy Public | 02.27.08 - 6:22 pm | #

He's a flamer? An evangelizing flamer? How ghey.
John Quincy Public | 02.27.08 - 6:22 pm | #

You're in a rare mood this evening.
Mrs. Pilgrim | Homepage | 02.27.08 - 7:00 pm | #

He was YOUR "competent and legal authority." Start being obedient and submitted, or else burn on the very pyre you tried to build for others.
Mrs. Pilgrim | Homepage | 02.27.08 - 6:19 pm

Excellent point, milady!

Of course, I'm sure "virtue" requires us to violate all 11 Commandments in servitude to our legal and moral betters.

Us being stupid serfs and all.
Michael Maier | Homepage | 02.27.08 - 7:05 pm | #

You're in a rare mood this evening.

It happens time and again.
John Quincy Public | 02.27.08 - 7:12 pm | #

Depends on how you define virtue. Kingdom values are different from worldly ones.
superninja | 02.27.08 - 10:52 pm | #

Jesus never condemned the Roman soldier. In fact, he never condemned the Roman government as far as I could tell.
superninja | 02.27.08 - 10:52 pm | #

Larry, your arguments against slavery are emotional appeals, and hence lack validity. If we're talking about morals, God makes the rules not you.
Crystal Lake | 02.27.08 - 10:55 pm | #

And as for the issue of people bearing imago dei, that is why slavery was heavily regulated (to prevent gross mistreatment, for example). Slavery was only allowed in pow situations and under agreement from the prospective slave. This served some uses..as the Torah itself states..in, for example, delivering poorer people from debts. The scripture, "the borrower is servant to the lender" can be very literal in some situations.
Crystal Lake | 02.27.08 - 10:58 pm | #

On the issue of levitical law...

Levitical law was fulfilled by the death of Christ so that no Christian would have to subject themselves to it any more.

Well, "levitical" laws are obsolete because our High Priest was not of the tribe of Levi, let alone a cohen (ed. time for the kiddies: cohen means "priest"..any Jew you see with that last name is most likely descended from them, children of Aaron..yay!).

But, you aren't talking about laws surrounding priesthood, and such laws would be inapplicable to us anyways since most of us aren't Jews.

Christians are not "subject" to it, in the sense that they are not saved or justified by it. No one can be, and no one ever has been. Thus, the need for a Saviour. I read a quote yesterday about that, and it impressed me in its pithiness:

The law is for the self-righteous, to humble their pride: the gospel is for the lost, to remove their despair.

Just as long as we recognize that the law doesn't save, then we're good. But that doesn't mean the law is no longer applicable to anything. The greek word for "fulfill" actually means "to complete, cause to overflow, make abundant". It doesn't mean to put an end to it.

In fact, Paul said that any Christian who continues to submit to the Levitical law (now that Jesus had fulfilled it, and all that) was willingly putting themselves under a curse (Gal 3).

Actually, reading the entire book, you realize that he's talking about legalism..not submitting to the law. You can submit to the law, while still believing that it can't save you.
Crystal Lake | 02.27.08 - 11:07 pm | #

Larry, your arguments against slavery are emotional appeals, and hence lack validity. If we're talking about morals, God makes the rules not you.

Yes, he does, and maybe you would like to explain to Him how you think that it is alright to enslave someone who bears His image and for whom He died.
Larry | Homepage | 02.27.08 - 11:17 pm | #

This served some uses..as the Torah itself states..in, for example, delivering poorer people from debts.

This is not the way of the Kingdom, where forgiveness is the rule. Jesus had much to say about the forgiveness of debt, and He wasn't just talking about sin.
Larry | Homepage | 02.27.08 - 11:20 pm | #

We can't submit to the law properly without the Spirit anyways ("the carnal mind is enmity against God"), and the Spirit will only come after we look to Jesus, but we have to acknowledge that we completely depend on Him, that we are fully giving up our life to Him. The branches cannot bear fruit of itself.

The spirit of legalism is all about self-effort, self-righteousness, and ultimately self-deceit - as if we are perfectly capable of being or becoming perfect in our fallen nature. This is a horrid, despicable doctrine that rejects the gospel and puts the sacrifice of Messiah to no purpose. It puts us under a curse (and the curse was to the disobedient), because there is sin in us. That is what the whole scripture of Galatians was about..that when we start relying on ourselves for righteousness, we are putting ourselves under the curse and have fallen from grace! Paul was rightfully shocked and appalled, but not because we are "submitting to the law".

now, how would it make sense for Paul to disparage the law in one instance and in that very same epistle talk about conforming to the Spirit as opposed to the sinful lusts of the flesh? What is the sinful lust of the flesh if not disobeying the law, and under what justification do we decide that some "laws" are valid and some aren't?

It doesn't make much sense what folks do with the scripture in this regard, and it doesn't mesh well with what the book of Romans and 1 John says about the law, sin, and obedience, either, much less Jesus Himself in the Matthew ch. 5.
Crystal Lake | 02.27.08 - 11:22 pm | #

and maybe you would like to explain to Him how you think that it is alright to enslave someone who bears His image and for whom He died.

Okay. How about you let Him do the judging, hm?

Speaking to *you*, Larry, perhaps you should pay attention to this scripture:

You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of Yahveh your God which I command you
Crystal Lake | 02.27.08 - 11:31 pm | #

*add* was supposed to be emphasized..a mite distracted now.
Crystal Lake | 02.27.08 - 11:31 pm | #

Speaking to *you*, Larry, perhaps you should pay attention to this scripture:

Perhaps you should take your own advice on judging. Even better, try to get beyond the bare text of the Bible and get in touch with the Spirit behind it.

And you still didn't answer the question of how you could enslave a person for whom Christ died.
Larry | 02.27.08 - 11:38 pm | #

This is not the way of the Kingdom, where forgiveness is the rule.

And do you not think it is equally incumbent upon us to repay debts that we are able to pay? "Owe no one anything" "Render to all their due"

This is the honourable thing to do, Larry.

Jesus was speaking in a parable..not talking about literal debt.

Sure, the potential master could simply forgive the debt, but it's also possible that insodoing he could be enabling a foolish financial lifestyle. In that scenario, the most *loving* (and I mean it in the agape sense) thing to do would be to have him take responsibility for it.

That is what parents do for their children..teach them through correction. On that basis, would you say that a parent should "forgive" and then let the child run off without taking responsibility? I don't think so.

And regarding a literal debt that cannot be repaid without one's life, yes, I would agree with you on *that* contingent.
Crystal Lake | 02.27.08 - 11:43 pm | #

Perhaps you should take your own advice on judging.

I simply brought you to the scripture. How is that judging you? Or maybe you expected me to argue with you based on my opinion..I'm sorry, but I'm not going to do that. If I were going by my own opinion, *then* I would be more likely to be guilty of judging you.
Crystal Lake | 02.27.08 - 11:47 pm | #

Jesus was speaking in a parable..not talking about literal debt.

A convenient interpretation. What makes you think He wasn't talking about literal debt, given the high level of indebtedness of the population at the time? In addition to the imperial taxes of Rome the people of Galilee and Judea had to pay for Herod the Great's and Herod Antipas' building programs.
Larry | 02.27.08 - 11:47 pm | #

the most *loving* (and I mean it in the agape sense) thing to do would be to have him take responsibility for it.

Right agape love mean selling someone into slavery. I sure hope you never run into someone who loves you that much.
Larry | 02.27.08 - 11:49 pm | #

Even better, try to get beyond the bare text of the Bible and get in touch with the Spirit behind it.

Even the apostles commended the Bereans because they went to the scripture to see whether what the apostles presented was true and accurate.

You agree with me that God makes the rules, but then disregard the rules when I bring you His..and proceed with attacking me. How is that Spiritual?

And you still didn't answer the question of how you could enslave a person for whom Christ died.

Why should I now? You're not going to pay attention. I'll refer to the scripture, and you'll run your mouth off with a personal attack.

Forget it. I'm done. I didn't comment so I can engage in an endless feud with folks about scripture.
Crystal Lake | 02.27.08 - 11:54 pm | #

Crystal Lake: Christians are not "subject" to it, in the sense that they are not saved or justified by it.

That jives with what I understand and
what I've read. Obviously, others take a different tack on this. I'd love to get the peanut gallery to shout out on this.

Larry: And you still didn't answer the question of how you could enslave a person for whom Christ died.

I thought WAYTF had addressed this already? Or at least I found his argument persuasive at any rate.
John Quincy Public | 02.27.08 - 11:56 pm | #

Right agape love mean selling someone into slavery.

Now, you're sounding like Renee. See, pointless.
Crystal Lake | 02.27.08 - 11:57 pm | #

you're sounding like Renee.

in her failure to understand the arguments when she's passionate about a subject and doesn't want to be wrong.

I'm open to correction, though, and shall continue reading.
Crystal Lake | 02.27.08 - 11:58 pm | #

Now you're talking to yourself. Definitely crazy.
John Quincy Public | 02.28.08 - 12:07 am | #

Larry, would you agree that slavery is part of the world system?
superninja | 02.28.08 - 12:22 am | #

The decision about slavery was made after much theological debate because, as has already been noted, the Bible doesn't specifically condemn the institution of slavery. It does, however, tell us how we should treat each other.

How the African slaves were treated was immoral, certainly. The conditions in which they were transported to the Americas alone were grounds for the elimination of the system. Contrary to Wheeler's previous comment serfdom wasn't slavery, the serf owned the product of his labour and had rights under the law. He was a freeman.

The argument against slavery was carried on the bearing of the Imago Dei, and the failing of slave owners and traders to treat slaves as men like themselves. The Pope sent two bulls to South America calling for the abolition of slavery there, but he was ignored.

The opposition to slavery was Christian, but not necessarily Biblical... It's a tough question WATYF.
Jason | Homepage | 02.28.08 - 1:28 am | #

I don't trust people to understand without clarifying.
Crystal Lake | 02.28.08 - 1:43 am | #

WATYF 1) What do you consider the "Golden Rule" (i.e. cite the scripture).

2) Vox points out in TIA, quite accurately, that the Golden rule alone can not be used as a moral model, since it allows those who would be willing to have something done to themselves to do things to others that the others wouldn't want done to themselves. Could this logical loophole be applied to slavery?

It may not be able to be used alone, but it is clearly useful.

3) If slavery is wrong according to the Golden Rule (a fixed Biblical principle), then was the apostle Paul wrong to tell Christian slaves that they should submit to the Christian masters, or to say that Christian masters should treat their slaves well (instead of saying that Christian masters should release their slaves outright).

Well he did do as much to Philemon. But here you make a category error. It is a common one but nevertheless an important one.

Commands to men about how they are to behave to others are not commands to the others to force this behaviour, nor commands to others to even be in that position.

A command to obey the government is not a command for the government to enforce compliance. A command not to accept a bribe is not a command not to give one. A command to obey one's husband does not legitimise the husband's behaviour.

A command for slaves to obey their masters does not imply that slavery is okay, or that masters are to take advantage of this.

Too many people do evil justifying their behaviour by biblical passages that do not apply to them!
bethyada | Homepage | 02.28.08 - 3:48 am | #

Larry: And you still didn't answer the question of how you could enslave a person for whom Christ died.

You have to understand the cultural context of slavery in primitive or ancient civilizations and how it was a social necessity in some cases. We in the West and particularly the past 50 years, live in such affluence that it is hard to get a perspective on how harsh life was in less advanced and primitive societies of years ago. In times past, slavery in essence (for many societies) could mount to a social welfare system.

Suppose someone warped you back in time 2500 years ago and dropped you off somewhere in a small city in ancient Egypt. How would you survive? There is no government social welfare system to take care of you. No local charity or hostel service for the poor. And you have no applicable skills with which to be employed -- and even if you did, there is probably no waiting job market waiting to hire people anyway.

After a couple of days without food, and faced with starving, you would basically have to resort to stealing food or something else to trade for food to survive. Given the relative scarcity of food for many people during these times, these people you are stealing from wouldn't take lightly to you taking their food or property. A conflict might even arise where someone could get killed over these precious resources that people depended on for their survival.

So what is society to do with you? The government would basically make you a ward (slave) of some family with means. The family would provide you with shelter and food and you in return would be required to render your labor to them. This would be for your own benefit and for society's protection. Your status as a ward of that family would be similar to an employee of them -- you would be under their authority. It could possibly be permanent and it would be enforced by the government.

There are other possibilities for slavery as a social institution too. Petty criminals with no means might be put into slavery to protect society. If a natural disaster (like a flood) wiped out the means of a group of people -- destroyed their town and/or livelihood, they might have to be warded out (put into slavery) to take care of them. Otherwise, they might die of starvation or cause havoc if they all started stealing things to survive. Again, the cultural context is that there is no UN or large institution with the means that is going to fly in food and aid to these people. The government might even conscript you as a slave to build roads or other infrastructure needed for society, and as someone already pointed out, people are still conscripted into the army today.

This is not to say that some forms of slavery might be morally objectionable, but a case certainly can be made for some types of servitude (slavery) in society depending on the situation and context. Also, these slaves were still required to be treated with the respect due to them being one of God's creatures with an eternal soul -- from a Christian POV.
Blastman | 02.28.08 - 8:20 am | #

Yes, Blastman has it right, You have to understand the cultural context of slavery in primitive or ancient civilizations and how it was a social necessity in some cases.

Unlike many people on this blog--I actually lived this kind of life for a summer---I cut hay by Hand with a scythe. How many people here have made hay without machines or even made hay? This is all I did for 3 months. Nothing else, living in a house with no electricity, no running water. How many prissied posters here have ever lived like that? Is there any understanding of the "Cultural Context" that required slavery?

And after making hay all day, drawing my own water, making my own fire and bread--I had enough time and energy to engage in Civilization like reading, philosophy, visiting meetings of import. Yea.

--------

On Serfs---Serfs were not free. They quasi-free. They were tied to the land. They were not free to move, they could not dispose of property. They were tied to the Land and the manor. Serfs are a type of quasi-slavery.
WLindsayWheeler | Homepage | 02.28.08 - 9:38 am | #

And that slavery was created by MAN.

There is no God-given dictat stating I belong to anyone. And I refuse to acknowledge that my life is anyone's but my own.

That doesn't mean that I am free of man-made legal "obligations" like taxes or that I wouldn't go to jail for forcibly resisting a draft on nothing but principle.

It means I own me, not one else on THIS earth.

Any totalitarian bastards can piss off.
Michael Maier | 02.28.08 - 10:58 am | #

This is not to say that some forms of slavery might be morally objectionable, but a case certainly can be made for some types of servitude (slavery) in society depending on the situation and context.

Possibly in a penal context, but no other. We still practice slavery, or "involuntary servitude", in that context today.

Also, these slaves were still required to be treated with the respect due to them being one of God's creatures with an eternal soul -- from a Christian POV.

How do you treat someone with "respect" while buying and selling him like a head of cattle? Or beating him up to the point of death, as the OT allows? It was the fact that Christianity required slaves to be recognized as brothers and as fully human, Christianity changed the status of a slave from an "it" to a "he" or "she", that resulted in the end of the ancient and universal practice of slavery in Christendom by the start of the medieval period. It is hard to share the Lord's table on Sunday with a man and then treat him as a slave on Monday.

The rest of your post can't even be taken seriously. Do you think, like Wheeler evidently does, that social institutions can't be sinful? Of course they are. And yes there can be some situations, in some historical and social contexts, where slavery may have been the best outcome for an individual given the choices that he faced, but this only serves to condemn the societies involved, it in no way justifies slavery or means that it is not inherently sinful and morally wrong.
Larry | Homepage | 02.28.08 - 11:03 am | #

And after making hay all day, drawing my own water, making my own fire and bread--I had enough time and energy to engage in Civilization like reading, philosophy, visiting meetings of import. Yea.

Actually, the number of hours worked yearly by a medieval peasant was fewer than what the average American works currently (and the average American does have time for those things, though few engage in them).
Larry | Homepage | 02.28.08 - 11:06 am | #

Larry, would you agree that slavery is part of the world system?

It can be, but it definitely should not be part of the Kingdom of God.
Larry | Homepage | 02.28.08 - 11:08 am | #

Larry: And you still didn't answer the question of how you could enslave a person for whom Christ died.

I thought WAYTF had addressed this already? Or at least I found his argument persuasive at any rate.

Then you are easily persuaded. WAYTF's argument seemed to me to be "the Bible mentions slavery so it must be OK", and claiming that my arguments weren't Biblical, although I know of no other source for claim that humans bear the Imago Dei, or that Christ died for all men. Nobody has dealt with the issue of sharing the body of Christ with somebody on Sunday and then selling him like a side of meat on Monday. Of course in American south they dealt with this problem, or at least the "emotional" aspects of it, by having thoroughly un-Biblical segregated services, but this wasn't the case in the ancient church, slaves and owners attended the same services and shared the same bread and drank the same wine.
Larry | Homepage | 02.28.08 - 11:16 am | #

Larry, I agree with you. However, is it the Christians job to overthrow the world system? Slaves and masters can be a part of the the Kingdom of God, no one is excluded if they believe on Jesus Christ.
superninja | 02.28.08 - 12:09 pm | #

I don't think Christians should be making a living off the slave trade, because of how job requires you to view and treat other human beings. But there are a lot of jobs I would put into that category that are a part of the world system, including my own.

But if you were to purchase a slave as a member of your household and having them under your authority treated them as Christ commanded?

Would this be better than having the State as your master? Heck yes!
superninja | 02.28.08 - 12:15 pm | #

However, is it the Christians job to overthrow the world system?

Absolutely. What do you think Jesus meant when he taught us to pray "your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven"? Christianity is a subversive belief, right down its basic beliefs. We may not think that the most basic creed, "Jesus is Lord" is subversive, but Caesar certainly did. And if you think there is room in the Kingdom for slave owners, do you think there is room in heaven for them, in that state? If there is not room in heaven for them, then there is not room for them in the God's in-breaking kingdom, either. True, the kingdom isn't fully realized, yet, and won't be until Jesus returns, but I don't think that this excuses the church from either ignoring injustice or from correcting it when she finds it.

An excellent book on all this, the kingdom and what it means to be incarnation and taking creation seriously not specifically slavery, is N.T. Wright's latest Surprised by Hope. I cannot recommend it highly enough.


Would this be better than having the State as your master? Heck yes!

The evil of one does not justify the evil of another.
Larry | Homepage | 02.28.08 - 1:13 pm | #

I agree it's subversive all right.

So can you demonstrate when Christ advocated the overthrow of Caesar? Christ's harshest remarks were for those perverting the Word and mixing in his truth with traditions of men.

What does Paul saying in Romans about it? Paul used the Romans to protect him from the "Synagogue of Satan" and they eventually executed him.

Who judges nations and rulers - men or God? When God judges nations, are the remnant included with the unrighteous? I would say they are.

Christ rejected the world system when Satan offered it to him, preferring the Kingdom of God.

Would you agree that the large majority of the world's population, historically and today, belong to the world system?
superninja | 02.28.08 - 1:59 pm | #

Was Nebuchadnezzar a God-fearing fellow? Or the Assyrian King who deported the Israelites, or Pharaoh of Exodus?

The Judahites and Israelites were told to surrender to the Babylonians. Rebellion against them was rebellion against God.

Slavery exists because of the world system and people rejecting the Kingdom.
superninja | 02.28.08 - 2:11 pm | #

Christ rejected the world system when Satan offered it to him, preferring the Kingdom of God.

But He did not reject the world, only the terms under which it was offered. If He truly rejected creation and the world, there would be no need for the incarnation and the cross, or, especially, a physical resurrection. Don't confuse rejecting the "world system" with rejecting the created world.

So can you demonstrate when Christ advocated the overthrow of Caesar?

The whole "turn the other cheek" and "walk two miles instead of one", and "give your tunic (underwear) as well" were tremendously subversive. Then there are all the Kingdom parables comparing the kingdom to yeast working through the dough, or a mustard plant/weed. He advocated not the "overthrow" of Caesar, with its connotations of violence, in fact he warned the Jews against attempting that many times, but rather the replacement of the world system (or Rome) by the Kingdom of God. Not by violence, but by reborn individuals living the reality of it in their lives. As Paul said, we do not make war as the world does or use the world's weapon, but we are still at war, and that requires us to use judgment in order to determine who, or what, we are at war with.

Who judges nations and rulers - men or God?

Both. Jesus warns against hypocritical judgment, not all judgment, and doesn't advocate for judgment, in the sense of condemnation, at all. But if we are to replace the bad with the good, or at least the better, it requires judgment.

By the way, a better translation for "my kingdom is not of this world" is "my kingdom is not from this world". Unfortunately the Greek for the two phrases is identical, so translators have to be guided by theology.
Larry | Homepage | 02.28.08 - 2:32 pm | #

Only God judges nations and rulers. I am not talking about individual's use of judgement, but "when the sin of the people is full" kind of stuff.

Agreed that the only way to really change things is by people becoming Christians. Most of the world is made up of unbelievers. How does God deal with unbelievers? They get the rod - it points them to their need for salvation. The law. The Christian, meanwhile, is disciplined. The remnant is allowed their lives.

Of course he doesn't reject creation, but it's about whose authority they are under.
superninja | 02.28.08 - 3:10 pm | #

But He did not reject the world, only the terms under which it was offered.

He rejected the world system entirely. The Kingdom of God is antithesis of it.
superninja | 02.28.08 - 6:02 pm | #