All,

History would seem to support Neo on the matter of slavery. Herein, I quote Robin Lane Fox:

“ Christian leaders did nothing to disturb it [slavery]. When Christian slaves in an Asian church community began to propose their freedom should be bought from community funds, Ignatius of Antioch advised firmly against the suggestion.”

Relatedly Aslan, Philo and Boaz,

What is your take on 1Timothy 6.1?

“Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.”

Thus, would not the Bible recommend that slaves endure their beatings and carry heavy loads? Moreover, prior to the Pauline period would it have been proper for slaves to be forcibly circumcised in line with Jewish rites?

Given that servants “under the yoke” appear to form a part of God’s doctrine:

Firstly, does that doctrine apply today? (Philo, presumably not?)

Secondly, does a slave have the right to exercise free will against a Master, without blaspheming?

There is a sad history between ancient times and Lincoln. Moreover, even in the US example, Lincoln was at best minimally anti-slavery and was much more interested in the preservation of the Union.

Philo, I need to review your recent post. The above was written beforehand.

Philo, I didn't think I had to put you in the same class as Aslan but it looks like I'm going to have to after all. But then again this is a massive blind spot in your religion.

You just don't get it.

>The Bible record is a development of revelation, and writers did not have all the facts we have today.

They didn't need the facts they had revelation, a direct line from your big cheese, so why couldn't your God just say right from beginning that slavery is WRONG?

He could tell them not to eat pork but couldn't say slavery was wrong?

What a joke.

BTW where in the NT did Jesus condemn slavery?

>Slavery in its day employed and fed people in a disciplined manner that would otherwise starve, or plunder to survive.

You are serious aren't you?

If you want to help people, w-h-y n-o-t b-e c-o-m-p-a-s-s-i-o-n-a-t-e and feed, shelter people or pay them a honest wage, not turn them into slaves for frigs sake?

>It was the compassion and sense of Christian teaching that all men are equal before God that ultimately denounced slavery as unchristian.

False. Some parts of the Bible may preach equality but because others condoned slavery many so Christians wanted to keep it.

Factor in the econmic factors and your position doesn't cut it.

philo by all means highlight the good in the Bible but accept the bad don't rationalize it.

Neohuman,

It is obvious you have little understanding of the practical events of the history slavery or of Biblical revelation, or of the factors that influenced development in human thought. But you certainly have a preconceived view of divine wisdom revelation that is not factual.

Quote, "If you want to help people, w-h-y n-o-t b-e c-o-m-p-a-s-s-i-o-n-a-t-e and feed, shelter people or pay them a honest wage, not turn them into slaves?"

THESE PEOPLE WERE SCAVENGERS, SO GATHERING THEM TOGETHER TO WORK FOR FOOD, SHELTER, AND SHARE THE PROTECTION OF THE OWNER GAVE THEM SOME DIGNITY. WAGES WERE PAID IN FOOD. THEY DID NOT HAVE A COMPLEX ECONOMY, WHAT ELSE DID THEY NEED? I SUGGEST YOU VISIT DROUGHT STRICKEN PLACES IN AFRICA TO GAIN SOME UNDERSTANDING. FIND OUT WHAT CHRISTIAN COMPASSION IS DOING IN THESE POOR COUNTRIES. DON"T CONTINUE IN YOUR ANTAGONISTIC IGNORANCE!!

Kenny/Oliver,

Re beating/striking slaves: case law of Exodus 21:20 is only reference to this. But this can hardly be regarded as condoning senseless beating of slaves. Firstly, if slave is killed as result, owner is punnished. Secondly, if slave sustained serious injury or lost any faculties, he/she was to be released (Ex 21:26). These laws were unprecedented in ancient world where master could treat his slave as he pleased. Thirdly, a master was allowed to hit his slave for disciplinary reasons. This is analogous to parents being permitted to spank their children.

Slaves were acquired as prisoners of war, by purchase from other owners or merchants, by birth (children of slaves), by restitution (payment of fines and damages), by default on debts (the major cause of slavery in biblical times), by selling yourself voluntarily to escape poverty, and by abduction, which was an offence punishable by death.

There were also limits to length of slavery. Insolvent debtors had to give 6 years. All Hebrew slaves had to be release at year of Jubilee but could be bought out sooner by relative.

Some slaves even came to love their masters and willingly stayed with them when they could legally go free. These were called bond-slaves.

Suffice to say, Biblical slavery was nothing at all like the African slave trade, which - as I pointed out - was opposed and eventually stopped by evangelical Christians.

Neohuman,

You claim that I think slavery, "ownership of another human being is OK". Well, if we take ownership to mean a controlling interest in another person, then yes. Indeed, it is not that different from a parent's authority over their child. A parent effectively "owns" their child. The parent provides food, clothes and shelter (as slave owner did for slave), and the child is expected to do chores for parent around the house.

As an ethical relativist, you are being inconsistent in passing judgment on Christianity/Bible re slavery. In your view, ethics are decided by individuals. You can only say that Biblical slavery is wrong for you, but your views are totally irrelevant to anyone else

Pericles and Oliver,

My syllogism was actually 2 syllogs conflated.

1. "all beliefs need to be tentative"
2. "all beliefs need to be tentative" is a belief.
3. Therefore, the belief that "all beliefs need to be tentative" should be held tentatively.

Now, 3 becomes first premise of 2nd syllog:

1. the belief that "all beliefs need to be tentative" should be held tentatively
2. A tentative belief may later be accepted or rejected.
3. If the belief that "all beliefs need to be tentative" is accepted or rejected, then that belief is no longer tentative!

Now, you could say that all beliefs remain tentative because you are not yet at the point of accepting or rejecting them, but this denies reality. Do you tentatively believe in the name your parents gave you? Do you tentatively believe your phone number? Your address?

Come on Oliver, this relativistic view is just complete nonsense. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it - because no-one can possibly live as a relativist. Reality prevents you from doing so.

You think your view leaves you free and unshackled - indeed, it does - but you are now floating in space with your feet firmly planted in mid-air!

21:20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.

21:21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money