From the Alt. Bible. Errancy discussion group 7-9-99:
TIMMY:
Here is another view:
The slavery tolerated by the Scriptures must be understood in its historical context. Old Testament laws regulating slavery are troublesome by modern standards, but in their historical context they provided a degree of social recognition and legal protection to slaves that was advanced for its time (Exodus 21:20-27; Leviticus 25:44-46).
>
In ancient times, slavery existed in every part of the world. Slaves had no legal status or rights, and were treated as the property of their owners. Even Plato and Aristotle looked upon slaves as inferior beings. As inhumane as such slavery was, we must keep in mind that on occasion it was an alternative to the massacre of enemy populations in wartime and the starvation of the poor during famine. It was to the people of this harsh age that the Bible was first written.
>
>
In ancient times, slavery existed in every part of the world. Slaves had no legal status or rights, and were treated as the property of their owners. Even Plato and Aristotle looked upon slaves as inferior beings. As inhumane as such slavery was, we must keep in mind that on occasion it was an alternative to the massacre of enemy populations in wartime and the starvation of the poor during famine. It was to the people of this harsh age that the Bible was first written.
>
TILL
Well, let me just ask a stupid question. Even though slavery was widely practiced in those days, why didn't Yahweh set a higher standard and tell his "chosen ones" that regardless of what other nations may do, they were not to enslave people? I would add to that another suggestion. Why didn't Yahweh tell his "chosen ones" that although other armies slaughtered entire civilian populations after battles, including even children and babies, he would hold them to a much higher standard and expect them to refrain from such barbaric conduct and to treat other people humanely? If such standards as these were found in the Bible, I would find it much easier to believe in the Hebrew god Yahweh. As it is, the Bible merely reflected the morality of its time, and so it is perfectly reasonable to assume that this is because the Hebrews created their god in their own image, just as the other nations of that time did.
Well, let me just ask a stupid question. Even though slavery was widely practiced in those days, why didn't Yahweh set a higher standard and tell his "chosen ones" that regardless of what other nations may do, they were not to enslave people? I would add to that another suggestion. Why didn't Yahweh tell his "chosen ones" that although other armies slaughtered entire civilian populations after battles, including even children and babies, he would hold them to a much higher standard and expect them to refrain from such barbaric conduct and to treat other people humanely? If such standards as these were found in the Bible, I would find it much easier to believe in the Hebrew god Yahweh. As it is, the Bible merely reflected the morality of its time, and so it is perfectly reasonable to assume that this is because the Hebrews created their god in their own image, just as the other nations of that time did.
Timmy's attempt to explain why slavery was condoned in the Bible is just another attempt to rationalize one of the serious morality problems found in it.
TIMMY
>In New Testament times, slave labor was foundational to the economy of the Roman empire. About a third of the population were slaves. If the writers of the New Testament had attacked the institution of slavery directly, the gospel would have been identified with a radical political cause at a time when the abolition of slavery was unthinkable. To directly appeal for the freeing of slaves would have been inflammatory and a direct threat to the social order. (1) Consequently, the New Testament acknowledged slavery's existence, instructing both Christian masters and slaves in the way they should behave (Ephesians 6:5-9; Colossians 3:2; 4:1; 1 Timothy 6:2; Philemon 1:10-21), at the same time that it openly declared the spiritual equality of all people (Galatians 3:28; 1 Corinthians 7:20-24; Colossians 3:11).
>
>In New Testament times, slave labor was foundational to the economy of the Roman empire. About a third of the population were slaves. If the writers of the New Testament had attacked the institution of slavery directly, the gospel would have been identified with a radical political cause at a time when the abolition of slavery was unthinkable. To directly appeal for the freeing of slaves would have been inflammatory and a direct threat to the social order. (1) Consequently, the New Testament acknowledged slavery's existence, instructing both Christian masters and slaves in the way they should behave (Ephesians 6:5-9; Colossians 3:2; 4:1; 1 Timothy 6:2; Philemon 1:10-21), at the same time that it openly declared the spiritual equality of all people (Galatians 3:28; 1 Corinthians 7:20-24; Colossians 3:11).
>
TILL
Well, let's suppose at the time when the NT was written, prostitution was foundational to the economy of the Roman empire. In that case, would it have been morally appropriate for the NT to condone the practice and simply give instructions to both Christian brothel owners and their prostitutes on how they should behave? A serious flaw in Timmy's rationalization is that the standard Christian view of morality is that it is objective (absolute). If that's the case, then there could have been no way that Christianity could have tolerated something that is objectively immoral without seriously compromising what it is supposed to stand for. In other words, if morality toward slavery can be situational (because of economic conditions), then theoretically any immoral practice could be justified depending on the situation. If not, why not?
Well, let's suppose at the time when the NT was written, prostitution was foundational to the economy of the Roman empire. In that case, would it have been morally appropriate for the NT to condone the practice and simply give instructions to both Christian brothel owners and their prostitutes on how they should behave? A serious flaw in Timmy's rationalization is that the standard Christian view of morality is that it is objective (absolute). If that's the case, then there could have been no way that Christianity could have tolerated something that is objectively immoral without seriously compromising what it is supposed to stand for. In other words, if morality toward slavery can be situational (because of economic conditions), then theoretically any immoral practice could be justified depending on the situation. If not, why not?
TIMMY
>(2) The gospel first had the practical effect of outmoding slavery within the community of the Church, (3) and carried within it the seeds of the eventual complete abolition of slavery in the Western world.
>
>(2) The gospel first had the practical effect of outmoding slavery within the community of the Church, (3) and carried within it the seeds of the eventual complete abolition of slavery in the Western world.
>
TILL
Yeah, right, and it took only about 1900 years to do this.
Yeah, right, and it took only about 1900 years to do this.
TIMMY
>The fact that the Bible never expressly condemned the institution of slavery has been wrongfully used as a rationale for its continuance. In the American South prior to the Civil War, many nominal Christians wrongly interpreted the Bible's approach to slavery and used their misunderstanding to justify economic interests. The terrible use of African slave labor continued in spite of those who argued from the Scriptures for the equality of all races(*).
>
TILL
But, gee, whiz, Timmy, the economics of the time required a source of cheap labor to process cotton, which was the backbone of the southern economy. My father, both grandfathers, and uncles on both sides of the family were all cotton farmers in Southeast Missouri, so I know something about the particular problems involved in producing this crop. During my childhood, there were no mechanical cotton pickers, so the crop had to be picked by hand. Before that, each cotton row had to have the grass and weeds removed from around the cotton plants several times, and this had to be done through a process called "chopping cotton," which was done by several individuals wielding garden hoes. One laborer could chop about an acre of cotton per day, and my father farmed over 200 acres. The cost of labor was high in cotton production, and a century before my time, there were no mechanical cotton gins, which at least existed when I was growing up. These factors were all contributing reasons for slavery in the south. So if economic conditions in the Roman empire justified slavery, why wouldn't economic conditions in the South have also justified it?
But, gee, whiz, Timmy, the economics of the time required a source of cheap labor to process cotton, which was the backbone of the southern economy. My father, both grandfathers, and uncles on both sides of the family were all cotton farmers in Southeast Missouri, so I know something about the particular problems involved in producing this crop. During my childhood, there were no mechanical cotton pickers, so the crop had to be picked by hand. Before that, each cotton row had to have the grass and weeds removed from around the cotton plants several times, and this had to be done through a process called "chopping cotton," which was done by several individuals wielding garden hoes. One laborer could chop about an acre of cotton per day, and my father farmed over 200 acres. The cost of labor was high in cotton production, and a century before my time, there were no mechanical cotton gins, which at least existed when I was growing up. These factors were all contributing reasons for slavery in the south. So if economic conditions in the Roman empire justified slavery, why wouldn't economic conditions in the South have also justified it?
You've rationalized, but you haven't explained why a morally perfect deity would not have acted to remove slavery entirely from a nation that he had selected to be his "chosen people."
Farrell Till
No comments:
Post a Comment