Just say what you mean; there’s no need to sugar coat it. And I’ve yet to see you make a point.
Archeologists have found the (sort of) cities that were built for the pyamid builders they were paid well and had a good life, some came from other areas to work it was voulantary and they left notes on pieces of rock or clay to prove this!
According to the psalmist they were. Psalm 81 in the RCC version, 82 in the KJV the psalmist says,“I say you are gods, and sons of the most high”, Jesus uses this quote when he was accused of blasphmey,and asks the people who said he blasphemed, why he would be said to blaspheme when their fathers also called god their father.
So, just to make sure I understand, are you arguing that “God” has stopped tolerating slavery as a necessary evil? If so, what would be your rationale for such a claim? Has “God” made any explicit revalations of his will in the period since the drafting of the books now known as the New Testament? Or are you inferring the point from extra-scriptural evidence? That’s a slippery slope which the devil sometimes uses to trick people into outright atheism you know.
Sandwich
PS I don’t follow your economic history point either. There was a gap of about 1,000 years between the abdication of the last emperor in the west and the emergence of rudimentary forms of modern capitalism in northern Italy, Champagne and the low countries. Social democracy took another half millenium or so after that.
It’s still hypocritical, even if it could be excused as a historical abberation that much of the world has now out-grown. However, if we take the bible as what it purports to be - the word of an almighty and eternal law giver - the problem is a lot larger than mere hypocrisy. “Necessary evil”, “you [theoretically] can be free if you are given some legal means to do so [and if not, you can’t]” and similar excuses are not excuses at all to an all-powerful being.
I didn’t know God was a moral relativist. I thought right was always right and wrong was always wrong.
So how do we tell which of the Biblical laws are still binding and which aren’t? Are we still supposed to kill witches and kids who disobey their parents? Are homos still bad? Are there other things the Bible endorses which we should now understand as bad?
Just to note, slavery as a regulated institution appears in the Hebrew Bible, pre-dating the Roman era by many centuries. One can argue about when the Hebrew Bible was written, but certainly some parts pre-date 1000 BC, and the Pentateuch (first five books) almost certainly pre-dates 500 BC. So Roman law was not a direct influence on the biblical text, but surely did affect the practice around the time of Jesus.
One can argue that slavery under biblical law was certainly more liberal than slavery under (say) contemporary Egyptian or Babylonian law, ditto any other ancient civilization. (Please note: I’m not arguing that it was good, I’m just remarking that it was relatively good for its time.)
What was different about it from Egyptian or Babylonian slavery. What the Bible describes is pretty much the same from everything I’ve read. If anythingEgypt was more enlighetned.
Nothing in the Bible predates 1000 BCE, by the way. The oldest stuff in it is maybe 800 BCE. I know that some more religionist scholars like to posit much older origins for embedded fragments (like 1200 BCE Song of the Sea), but there is no real support for this.
Actually it was condemnded. In chapter 8 of John’s Gospel, Jesus makes a comparison between living a life of sin and being a slave, and between freedom from sin and freedom from slavery. Which obviously only makes sense if the whole discourse is occuring under the assumption that enslavement is a bad thing. As Jesus said, “You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free,” and that carries with it the implication that being free is a good thing. Paul is also opposed to slavery, as for instance in Galatians chapter 3 where he declares “So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” But most important in this discussion is simply the fact that to both Jesus and the Apostles, the central fact of human existence was the equality of all humans before God, with no individual or race innately superior to any other, which on many occasions throughout history has been the basis for opposition to slavery. For instance, in 1537 Pope Paul III wrote his encyclical Sublimus Dei, concerning whether American Indians should be enslaved:
John Wesley called on similar arguments in the 18th century, as did a great many other prominent Christians. In fact, given how tenacious the institution of slavery has been in most of the world (and still is in some places), I find it doubtful that there ever would have been a forceful movement for its eradication if the Bible had not demanded one.
What does “some more religionist scholars” mean? Some scholars who know more about religion? Some scholars who are more religious? Some scholars who claim to be more religious? Some scholars who belong to a cult called Religionism? I can find some uses of the term “religionist” online, but the uses there aren’t very coherent and don’t fit your use of the term.
Paul is opposed to slavery? In Philemon 1:10-16 he sends an escaped slave back to his master - not exactly the behaviour of an abolitionist. Not to mention his famous “Slaves, obey your master” nonsense in Ephesians 6:5-9 - which goes hand-in-hand with your quoted sections - not opposed to the institution of slavery itself, but stating that the law and will of God applies both to slave and master;
"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. "
So, equal before God - but only in the next life. In this one, if you’re a slave, TS. Obey your master as you would Jesus. Speaking of which, if the best JC himself can do is oblique references to freedom from sin, I’m not impressed. I’m assuming you’re referencing this passage;
34 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. 35 Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. 36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. 37 I know that you are Abraham’s descendants. Yet you are looking for a way to kill me, because you have no room for my word. 38 I am telling you what I have seen in the Father’s presence, and you are doing what you have heard from your father."
This is well in line with what Paul wrote. The Christian laws and afterlife all apply to slaves - being set free by the Son sets you ‘free’ forever, but you’re still a slave. You’d think this would be an ideal opportunity for JC to say “Oh, and by the way - owning people as property is totally not cool.” - not a difficult thing to say. But instead he says that not a jot or tittle of the OT law will be changed (which includes lovely stuff about hammering an awl through your slave’s ear to permanently mark him as your property), and rendering unto Caesar. Jesus says many times that he is fundamentally unconcerned with the laws of this world and doesn’t wish to change them - see also Romans 13:1-7 (obey governing authorities) and John 18:36 (his kingdom is not of this world).
This is not a condemnation of the practice of slavery, just a metaphor, and elsewhere in the Gospels Jesus tacitly endorses slavery – in the Parable of the Talents, for instance. He also heals a Roman soldier’s catamite without any condemnation of the soldier for owning one.
Paul was preaching to slaves. They were a lot of the earliest converts, but Paul never condemned the practice of slavery, and told slaves to obey their masters.
We don’t know what the apostles thought, but there is no record of Jesus ever saying this. As a matter of fact, Jesus called gentiles “dogs” and “swine.” He is not recorded as saying that everybody is equal. He thought God was going to kill the gentiles and restore the Kingdom of Israel. He was no universalist. That’s modern day revisionism. He was a Jewish apocalyptist to the core.
So God is a moral relativist? There is no divine yardstick for good and evil if God is this flexible.
To the OP: It would be nice if you would occasionally weigh in on these topics. As I recall, we still don’t know which side of the US civil war you’d support.
Suppose a friend of my mine is on the run from the law for dealing a small amount of marijuana. If I urge him to turn himself in, that does not imply that I endorse America’s stance on prison time for dealing marijuana. I cannot change the law, only advise on how best to react given the unjust laws we have, and similarly Paul was not in a position to make changes to the law.
Oh, please, not this again. I know that Jesus changed many Old Testament Laws and so do you, or at least you certainly should, so what’s the point of trying to pretend otherwise time after time?
They were inspired by greed. God was just the convenient excuse, as it remains today for much of the evil committed in the world.
Would you have told an escaped slave to go back to his master in the antebellum south? Would you have dropped a dime on the Underground Railroad?
Not one, actually. Paul did that.
If you truly believed a law was unjust turning him in or encouraging him to turn himself in run counter to your interest. By that logic you should be telling Rosa Parks to settle herself down. But, as has been cited, Christians should be utterly unconcerned with the law in this world (beyond following it).
Dio answered this for me. Even so, the preceding and following sentences to the famous ‘jot or tittle’ line make JC’s intentions clear; “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them…Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”
Not to mention a relevant line in Hebrews; “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.”
So if he goes around changing OT laws not only is he a liar/hypocrit, he also speaks against an omniscient and unchanging God who needs to go about cleaning up after himself in a collection of his own holy books. Or, it’s written by fallible men, which is my position.
Exodus 21 mentions slavery several times. God is talking to Moses:
Again, these are literally the words of God spoken to Moses on the mountain. He could just as easily have said “Slavery- don’t do it”. He had condemned in the same session the marriage of an aunt to her nephew, which had to hit Moses kind of hard since his parents were aunt/nephew, so He obviously wasn’t concerned with what they had been practicing already.
Well, one I can think of. He forbade remarriage after divorce, which was actually making OT laws stricter; the OT permits divorce and remarriage.
Is the difference that there were people who actually thought that slavery was wrong in the antebellum south? I can’t find any objection to slavery as an institution in the ancient world. Objections to the way that slaves were treated, sure, and people who didn’t want to be slaves, sure, but nobody who actually said, “Slavery is wrong.”
I guess my question is, why would you expect Jesus or Paul or somebody like that to object to slavery? You’d expect them to have the values of their time, not today’s values, right?